Non-subjective valuing

ABSTRACT

Non-Subjective Valuing is a valuing system that unearths both an entity&#39;s actual current societal monetary value and/or price, and/or its contemporary monetary worth and/or price, specifically to an exploring individual person, group, family, vendor or corporation; by unearthing society&#39;s and/or said explorer&#39;s Worth Importance Point (WIP) preference chart, allocating observer&#39;s expressed preferences as percentages of the 100% total constitution/worth of a probed entity, determining the deductive market price of the average entity in any group, and by comparing a test entity with the average entity, in terms of the WIP chart of society and/or any explorer, calculating the target entity&#39;s monetary value, or rank. Society&#39;s said WIP application yields “True Value,” while applying the exploring individual&#39;s or company&#39;s said WIP, produces “Your Value.”

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This is a continuation of U.S. Ser. No. 08/593,894 filed Jan. 30, 1996, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,038,554, which is a continuation of U.S. Ser. No. 08/575,936 filed Dec. 20, 1995, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,911,131, and U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/003,952 filed Sep. 19, 1995, and U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/005,304 filed Oct. 16, 1995, and U.S. Ser. No. 09/333,536.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention

The present invention generally relates to the field of scientific valuation and is called Non-Subjective Valuing. More particularly, this invention appertains to the field of calculation of the monetary value, or ranking of something or any of its components or attributes as opposed to (and/or in addition to) its market price. Worth is discovered from various points of view, including from the standpoint of a vendor, a company engaged in advising the public, a certain group, an entire society or a unique individual. This method is designed to and does overcome both subjective valuation and asymmetric information in the marketplace by conclusively providing the observer the communal or collective monetary value of something based on desired, appropriate or ideal (perfect, or optimal) information by society or another observer about the probed entity, and also based on information about the preferences of the observing group or individual, thus being a highly desirable, beneficial and novel tool both for consumers and providers of goods and services.

The entire present system is based on the theory that once an observer knows precisely what such observer wants in an entity and is also ideally informed about that entity in terms of and in context of said perceiver, then such perceiver can accurately calculate the entity's actual current monetary importance to said observer.

2. Inventory of Prior Art

U.S. Pat. No. 4,191,472 issued to Mason on Mar. 4, 1980 for “Apparatus for the Evaluation of Coins” (hereafter the “Mason Patent”). The Mason Patent discloses a method for evaluating coins on an objective basis. First, facsimile coins representing the obverse and reverse sides of a given class of coins are displayed. The facsimile coins are divided into multiple sets, each representing a particular type of coin defect or imperfection. The facsimile coins within a set are arranged according to the increasing or decreasing extent of the coin defect or imperfection. Each facsimile coin is assigned a number representative of the relative value of the coin with such defect or imperfection. To evaluate the value of a real coin, the obverse and reverse sides of the real coin is compared to the facsimile coins. The numeric values of the facsimile coin which exhibits the coin defect or imperfection to the same extent as the real coin are recorded and calculated. The result is used to determine the monetary value of the real coin by referring to a correlation table.

U.S. Pat. No. 4,464,122 issued to Fuller et al. on Aug. 7, 1984 for “Health Potential Summary and Incentive System” (hereafter the “Fuller Patent”). The Fuller Patent discloses a method of evaluating an individual's health. The method utilizes a comprehensive questionnaire. The questionnaire is divided into different categories each having multiple questions to be answered by the individual. The answers are placed in score boxes. The actual condition of the individual is then compared to the ideal condition of each category to provide a health rating of the individual. Finally, the analysis provides an “appraised age” of the individual according to the health rating of the individual.

U.S. Pat. No. 5,083,270 issued to Gross et al. on Jan. 21, 1992 for “Method and Apparatus for Releasing Value of An Asset” (hereafter the “Gross Patent”). The Gross Patent discloses a computer aided data processing program. The program is used for recording and updating the value of mortgaged assets.

U.S. Pat. No. 5,224,176 issued to Crain on Jun. 29, 1993 for “Automated Coin Grading System” (hereafter the “Crain Patent”). The Crain Patent discloses an automated coin grading system. The system first utilizes a set of criteria established by professional and expert human graders. The different features of the coins are assigned point scores based on various parameters. These point scores are then used for calculating the subgrades and finally the final grade.

Japanese Patent No. 59-85,568 for “Information System of Used Car” (hereafter the “The '568 patent”). The '568 patent discloses a used car information exchange system. The system records seller's data concerning the information of the car for sale as well as buyer's information concerning the desired car. The available for sale and the buyer's demand are then compared and the closest match is sent to the buyer.

Japanese Patent No. 59-94,162 for “Electric Calculator for Estimate of Life Insurance” (hereafter “the '162 patent”). The '162 patent discloses an apparatus for estimating life insurance premiums. The device will process information such as the length of lives of the insured's family members and calculate the age expectancy of the insured, to determine the life insurance premium.

Article “Taking The Risk Out Of Fire Risk Underwriting” published on AIWEEK, Feb. 15, 1989 (hereafter “the AIWEEK Article”). The AIWEEK Article reported a computer program for fire risk underwriting. The program utilizes a menu-based system that prompts inputs by the user, and then evaluates various fire risk factors in calculating the premium.

U.S. Pat. No. 3,628,904 issued to Canguilheim discloses the use of “dimensional synthesis” to quantitatively express a multidimensional, subjective concept, according to a certain predetermined law and by a single numerical value and to create particular computing devices for use with the method. Dimensional synthesis is a scientific method of modelization and is a true method of measurement, the essential feature of which is to supply the means for providing quantified values for concepts which are of a subjective nature and multidimensional.

IN THE SPECIFICATION 1. SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention provides a method for calculating the monetary value, or ranking of something or any of its components or attributes as opposed to (and/or in addition to) its market price. Worth is discovered from various points of view, including from the standpoint of a vendor, a company who supplies information to laypersons, a certain group, an entire society or a unique individual. This method is designed to and does overcome both subjective valuation and asymmetric information in the marketplace by conclusively providing the observer the communal or collective monetary value of something, based on desired, appropriate or ideal (perfect, or optimal) information by society or another observer, about the probed entity, and additionally, based on information about the preferences of the observer group or individual, the present invention provides the true relative value of the test entity, thus being a highly desirable, beneficial and novel tool, both for consumers and providers of goods and services.

According to one aspect of the present invention, a method and procedure for providing the true relative value of an entity is disclosed, comprising the following steps: determining qualities of an entity and the relative importance of each quality of the entity to a observer; calculating the hypothetical price of the entity, such entity in its group, being measured to be exact average in its qualities (at least one quality selected), the group identified by the fact that members of said group could have the qualities of those of the other members of the group, this imaginary (or real) average unit called the NORM entity; comparing the actual quality or qualities of any existent test entity to the assumed average NORM entity on a percentage or other basis, and so discovering the monetary value or comparative ranking of any test entity to said observer by weighing the difference between any said test entity and said NORM entity on said noted parallel quality or qualities; translating said difference between any said test entity and said NORM entity on said noted parallel quality or qualities into monetary or other value or ranking so as to provide the true relative value for said entity; and providing said true relative value for said entity to said observer.

According to another aspect of the present invention, a method and procedure comprising the following steps is disclosed; creating a observer's Worth Importance Point Pie, or other descriptive representation, assigning relative weights of qualities of an entity by rating one, more or all said qualities of said entity on a scale of 0-10, 10 being most important, or 1-5, 5 being most important, or other similar scale; adding said ratings; dividing each said rating by one hundredth of the total number of said qualities, thereby attaining the matching slice sizes (or bar sizes, etc.) of said Worth Importance Point pie (or bar or other chart), for each of said qualities by the respective relevant percentages of the 100% total unit.

According to another aspect of the present invention, a method and procedure for providing the true relative value of an entity, comprising the following steps: determining qualities of an entity and the relative importance of said qualities (at least one) of said entity to a observer; calculating the notional price of a real or fictitious entity which said entity is average in its selected one or more qualities, comparing the actual weighted qualities of any existent or imaginary test entity with the weighted qualities of said average entity, to discover and measure, based on said quality difference, the value difference between said test entity and said average entity; then providing to the observer, the true relative values for each said test entity; and comparing said relative values of said entities, whether or not they are similar in nature, for instance if to said observer a specific dinner experience discovered to be worth $120 and a movie experience is discovered to have a value of $100, the dinner experience is 20% more, valuable to that perceiver. Now, if said dinner sells for $144, and the relevant movie ticket sells for $10, then to this observer, going to see the film, means a savings of $90, or in this case, he underpays by 90%, and if he selects to have that unique dinner, said observer overpays by 20%. His choice depends on: (a) his budget and (b) his willingness to overpay for what he really wants. The present invention can help him decide, by creating his WIP chart, which includes results of analyzable/calculable questions and answers posed to/elicited from him, regarding said observer's budget as well as his level of willingness to overpay for what he really wants, always using the 0-10, 10 being most important, or other similar scale which can ultimately express such value system in percentage or pecuniary terms.

According to yet another aspect of the present invention, a method and procedure for providing the true relative values of test entities are discovered and disclosed comprising the following steps; determining qualities of entities in a group (at least one quality selected,) as well as the relative importance of said qualities of said entities; calculating the veritable theory-based price of a real or fictitious entity in the selected group, which said entity is average in its qualities, comparing the actual qualities of said test entities to the parallel qualities of said average entity, measuring and expressing the difference in qualities between said test entities and said average entity; determining the value or ranking of said test entities by the weighted relationship between said test entities' qualities and those of said average entity; comparing the values of at least two test entities whether or not they are similar in nature, for instance if a vacation is discovered to be worth $1000 and a computer is discovered to have a value of $800, the vacation is 20% more valuable; and comparing existent prices with the actual values of said test entities, and sorting for the observer the best deal in said observer's terms, for instance if a vacation worth $1000 is for sale for $500, and a computer worth $800 is for sale for $700, the vacation is the better deal, but if the difference reaches a certain point, then it might be the other way around, depending on the observer's value system and desirability preferences, and so on.

According to yet another aspect of the present invention, a method and procedure for providing the true relative value of an entity, comprising the following steps; determining qualities of a test entity and the relative importance of each said quality of said test entity to an observer; calculating the deductive price of at least one real or fictitious entity which said entity is average in its qualities in its group, said group identified by the fact that members of said group could have any of the qualities of those of the other members of said group, this imaginary (or real) average unit being the average entity; comparing the qualities of said test entity to the qualities of said average entity on a weighted percentage or other basis, and so discovering the true relative value of said test entity to said observer by calculating and expressing the difference between said test entity and said average entity; collecting the consensus of the experts and laymen concerning said true relative value of said qualities; and determining on an equitable basis what the experts think the lay-persons' opinions should weigh, and discovering what the amateurs think the experts' opinion should weigh, then splitting both numbers to use for calculation.

According to yet another aspect of the present invention, a method and procedure for providing the true relative value of an entity, comprising the following steps; determining at least one quality for at least one entity, the relative importance of said quality to a observer and a value for each said at least one quality; providing an average entity, wherein said average entity is average in its group based upon said at least one quality and has an average price and an average value for said at least one quality; determining the value difference between said value for each said at least one quality and said average value for said at least one quality; ranking at least two entities of said at least one entity according said value difference to provide a ranked list of, said at least two entities; and supplying ranked list to said observer.

According to yet another aspect of the present invention, a method of evaluating a member or members of a group is disclosed, comprising: providing a group; providing an imaginary unit in said group wherein said imaginary unit has at least one average characteristic; retrieving in a marketplace an average price corresponding to said imaginary average unit; and quantifying the relative importance of said at least one average characteristic of said imaginary unit whereby the actual monetary value of any existent test unit in said group can be discovered by comparing said test unit's unique quantified or unquantified characteristics with those of said imaginary unit.

According to yet another aspect of the present invention, a method of evaluation is disclosed, comprising: providing a group; wherein said group is identified by the fact that the members of said group could have the qualities of those of the other members; providing an average imaginary unit in said group, which said average imaginary unit is calculated average as to at least one characteristic said members of said group can possess, and providing as well said average imaginary unit's assumed value as to provide a quantified quality for said average imaginary unit; noting at least one of the characteristics of members in said group to a observer and noting the relative importance of each selected at least one characteristic of said members of said group to said individual or collective observer to provide a quantified quality for said observer; comparing said quantified quality for said observer to said average quantified quality of said imaginary unit in said group, on a percentage or other equitable basis, whereby the monetary or other value or comparative ranking of any member of said group is discovered by weighing the difference between at least one quantified parallel qualities of any said member of said group, against said quantified parallel quality of qualities of the said imaginary unit in said group, translating such divergence into monetary or other value or ranking.

According to yet another aspect of the present invention, a method of appraising is disclosed, comprising: providing entities; providing attributes for said entities; organizing said entities by said attributes to form organized entities; ranking said organized entities to form ranked entities; displaying said ranked entities to form valued entities.

According to a still further aspect of the present invention, a method and procedure where the correct market price of a specific used automobile may be determined by comparing selected, quantified characteristics with those of the average used automobile, on a percentage or other basis is disclosed. This method comprising the following steps: through market survey or other method noting the assumed current sale price of an average used automobile, called the NORM, or other name, wherein said average used automobile is a reputed specific used make/year/model automobile. which said average used automobile is average according to a selected unlimited number of characteristics; selecting at least one characteristic, such as “popularity,” or “design,” all considered said at least one characteristic adding up to 100% of said average automobile's value, such as “engine condition,” and/or “prestige,” and/or “reliability” and/or “location,” and so on, for example a 1998 Mercedes C 230 which is average on all its said selected qualities, at a certain time and place, according to accurate research, should have a market price $10,000; through survey or other method note how relatively important each said at least one characteristic of said vehicle is to an observer vendor or consumer, such as for instance “engine condition 55%,” “interior condition 20%,” “extra equipment 22%,” “location 3%,” and so on, in the case of this particular example the monetary standard would then be $5,500 for said “engine condition,” (that is 55% of $10,000), $2,000 for said quality of “interior condition,” $2,200 for said attribute of “extra equipment,” and $300 for where said average automobile is located, and so on; rate an existing test vehicle, for example said test vehicle may be a unique test 1998 Mercedes C 230, on each of selected parallel said at least one characteristics on a scale of 0-10, 10 being best or 1-5, 5 being best, or some other consistent way, and suppose for example that due to said ratings our said test 1998 Mercedes C 230 rates 8% better than said hypothetical average vehicle on its quality of “engine condition,” 5% worse than the said average vehicle as to its “interior condition,” 10% worse than the said average vehicle as to its “extra equipment,” and 2% better than said average vehicle as to its “location,” then calculating the true value of said test vehicle, this particular said test due to its measured condition of its engine, would be worth $5,500+$440=$5,940 on that particular condition; or to put it another way, the importance of “engine condition” is 55%, which is worth $5,500 in case of said norm (average or standard or yardstick) vehicle, therefore add 8% of $5,500 for said test automobile being 8% better than said average vehicle on this particular quality; then $2,000 minus 5%=$1,900; then $2,200 minus $220 equals $1,800; and $300 plus $6 equals $306; and so on, or this particular test car's price should then be $9,946: that is its actual or true worth. This method may be used to appraise anything or anybody, no exception.

According to yet another facet of the present invention, a method and procedure where the current correct market price or ranking of an existent test entity may be obtained is disclosed; noting, for how much money an entity in its group would currently sell at the marketplace if said entity were average according to at least one selected quality, said entity with said at least one selected quality being average called the NORM, standard, yardstick, stock, criterion, rule, ordinary, touchstone, usual, orthodox or average entity; discovering, on a percentage or other basis, how relatively important each said at least one selected quality is, comparing said at least one selected quality of said existent said test entity with parallel quantified quality or qualities of said average entity on a percentage or other basis, then calculate the resulting difference and express it in monetary or ranking terms. A test entity which is 10% better than the average entity is assumed to be worth 10% more, but other equitable scales may be used to express the worth difference between the touchstone model and the test model. The same methodology may be used to compare things, places, people, concepts and anything else.

According to yet another aspect of the present invention, a method and procedure where the current correct market price or ranking of an existent test entity may be obtained and disclosed, comprising the following steps: noting for how much money a deductive entity in a provided group would currently sell at the marketplace if at least one quality of said assumed entity were average, provide at least one average quality; noting how relatively important each said at least one quality is; comparing parallel quantified unique quality or qualities of an existent test entity with said at least one average quality of said assumed average entity on a percentage or other basis; calculating and expressing the difference in monetary or ranking terms.

According to yet another prospect of the present invention, a method and procedure for providing the true price of a specific used automobile is disclosed, the method comprising the following steps: noting the assumed current sale price of an average used automobile; selecting at least one characteristic; assigning an importance rating to each said at least one characteristic; rating an existing test vehicle according to said at least one characteristic; calculating the true relative value of said test vehicle by multiplying said at least one characteristic by its corresponding said importance rating to provide a true relative value for said test vehicle; rating said average used automobile according to said at least one characteristics; calculating the true relative value of said average used automobile by multiplying said at least one characteristic by its corresponding said importance rating to provide a true relative value for said average used automobile; and comparing said true relative value for said test vehicle with said true relative value for said average used automobile.

According to a still additional expression of the present invention, a method and procedure for providing the true relative value of an entity is disclosed, comprising the following steps: determining a set of qualities of said entity, wherein said set of qualities consists of at least one quality; determining the relative importance of each said quality within said set of qualities to a observer; calculating a rating for an average entity according to said relative importance of said set of qualities and the rating of said quality for said average entity; calculating a rating for a test entity according to said relative importance of said set of qualities and the rating of said quality for said test entity; comparing said rating for an average entity to said rating for a test entity to provide a comparison basis; translating said comparison basis between any said test entity and said average entity into monetary or other value or ranking so as to provide the true relative value for said entity; and providing said true relative value for said entity to said observer.

A method and procedure of determining the true relative value of an item to an observer comprising the following steps: determining an appropriate set of qualities for said item; rating the importance of each quality of said item, within said set of qualities to said observer, on a scale of 0 to 10, or other equitable, representative scale, to provide a set of importance ratings comprised of individual importance ratings; adding said individual importance ratings to provide a total rating; dividing each said individual importance rating by said total rating to provide the relative weight for each quality within said set of qualities; determining a quality rating according to said set of qualities for at least one said item; multiplying each said quality rating by said relative weights for at least one said item to provide at least one weighted value; and adding each said at least one weighted value to provide said item's true relative value.

These and other features, aspects and advantages of the present invention will become better understood with reference to the following drawings, description and claims.

2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

If people thought that they customarily get what they pay for, they would not purchase Consumer Reports type of buying guides. What need would there be for them? We would simply say: I have $1500 to spend, give me a $1500 computer, knowing that if a computer costs $1500, then both to society and to the individual buyer, it is always worth $1500 too. But this is not true, of course.

Worse yet, Consumer Reports type of buying guides give you only incomparable, unquantified numbers, and strictly from the reviewer's or staffs' own necessarily and inevitably partial point of view. Such buying guides represent that they compare products and services for you. They actually do not. They want you to try to compare them, based on various incomparable, partial and prejudiced “facts” regarding selected attributes of the probed entities. If you pressed the reviewers, they might venture a guess as to what they mean in dollars and cents when they say “Reliability for this specific car is 15% better than average,” but they do not really know: they have no standard yardstick with which to measure one vehicle to another, and they very seldom express their opinions in percentage terms anyway.

Now, try asking a Consumer Reports type of outfit what “Reliability for this specific car is 15% better than average” (if they even go as far as quantifying reliability, which they almost never do!) means to a unique observer, in dollars and cents? You will get a hearty laugh, of course. Apparently it is a stupid question, since without knowing the unique desires of a specific individual, obviously this question cannot be answered. Correct. The present invention's chart system solves this challenge forever.

The present invention always works on percentages at the calculation stage. “0-10, 10 being best” (or most important), or “1-5, 5 being best” (or most important), is only used to make the procedure easier, faster and more accurate.

The case of the person or corporation (consumer or vendor) to learn value is illustrated as follows: While in our following “computer” example it is not hard for an individual observer (or company) to enter: “To me, Speed is important to 56% and Reliability to 44%,” once we go beyond two or three qualities, no one should be required to allocate by-percentages the relative importance to her of many attributes, before we can help her. It would prove virtually impossible anyway.

However, as long as a consumer or corporate-vendor observer says “X, Y, Z qualities are important to me to 7, 9 and 2,” Non-Subjective Valuing calculates the relative importance of these qualities to this inquirer as: 7:0.18=39%; 9:0.18=50%; and 2:0.18=11%, or to this explorer X=39%; Y=50% and Z=11%, whether the relative importance allocations are 1, 2, or 10,000. In the present invention, all steps to attain the actual value of anything or anybody, including the calculations and the polls, may be done by hands and minds of people: no machine or apparatus is needed. The discovery, that the comparing of individual entities, be they things, places, humans or concepts, with the average entity, of which we know the value, by quantified qualities, is the essence of this invention. It is a process which works and which ultimately yields a specific, useful and novel number, due to a very exceptional and singular series and combination of surveys and mathematical calculations. Non-Subjective Valuing overcomes subjectivity by being able to unearth the organic answer to the question: What would Society think something is worth if said Society were ideally informed about a thing? Using the computer and the Internet, speeds the process greatly and makes it very practical, but the invention is neither abstract, since it produces a working, novel, useful, specific number: enabling us to compare what something is worth with what the thing costs, nor does it require anything more than minds and hands to accomplish its aim.

Examining expert reviewers, as we know that at best, critics too usually rate qualities by 1-10, as opposed to percentages or other exact methods. (If all qualities but one and the prices two things are identical, then comparing this one quality by numbers or any other way, is very useful. Example: there are two cars which cost exactly the same and are identical, except that one has better tires. By letting the buyer know about this one fact, it makes his choice easy. But in real life, this situation never presents itself. Two things usually differ in many more than one characteristic, normally hundreds or thousands. When two things differ in more than one attribute, to evaluate any single attribute without evaluating all the others, is a useless swindle. Commentators will say “The Dell is very reliable” and if you press them, they might translate this expression to an 8, while forcing an expert to interpret his opinion of “excellent,” would probably yield a 9. But on their own, referees very seldom say that “Reliability of the Dell is 23% better than average,” and of course, until now, none of them could ever say: Computer “A” is worth $652, regardless of its price. The so called shopping guides (even when they are independent of advertisers, which is seldom), simply tell you where you can buy a $500 computer for $400, but whether or not that computer is worth $300 or $600: you will never know from the commentators. Until the present invention, no one had a standard yardstick to measure the actual worth of computers, used cars, dentists, movie critics, or anything or anybody else; not from their own individual points of view, not from an unaffiliated consumer's point of view, not from society's point of view and not from the manufacturer's or service provider's point of view.

Until the present invention introducing the using of the average as the touchstone, this inability to compare things did not seem too important, since no one knew precisely what “very good,” or “much better,” “not nearly as good” meant, and it was thought that there was no better way to compare things than (a) approximately and (b) one attribute at a time. This way, self-serving advertisements and misleading rumors dominated people's minds when it came to choosing anything. For instance, in nations with Communist systems, health care is free. If you disregard other aspects of such dictatorships, it seems like a nice place to live.

The present invention collects data regarding an entity from an Observer (Vendor or Consumer, buyer or seller), regarding the relative importance of qualities to the Observer of such entity, calculates the assumed price of the average entity in its field, compares the quantified qualities of a specific, existent entity to those of the average entity, figures in monetary or other terms the worth difference between the existent entity and the average entity, and lists for the Observer, in terms of the Observer, in order of monetary or other comparable values, entities in that field. (For instance, the lack of freedom of speech might be evaluated against free medical care, when one compares political systems such as Communism with Capitalism.)

This method also accumulates data from Observer, Observer rating quality or qualities of an entity 0-10, 10 being most important, 0 being of no significance, 5 being of average portent to the Observer, and so on, divides each such rating by 1 ooth of the total number of qualities rated, each quality now having its adjunctive “pie slice size,” expressed in percentage terms, according to the Observer's value system, each such quality's particular relative importance so established in reference to that entity.

Additionally, this procedure amasses data from Observer, Observer rating quality or qualities of an entity 0-10, 10 being critical, 0 being of no significance, 5 being of average portent to the Observer, and so on, divides each rating by 100^(th) of the total number of qualities rated, each quality then having its adjunctive “pie slice size,” expressing them according to the Observer's value system, in percentage or other definitive terms, each referenced quality's particular relative importance being so constituted in denotation to such entity, the existent entities are then individually measured against the entity which is average in its field on its quality or qualities, and the value differences are expressed in pecuniary or other terms, these concrete entities are then sorted and the results of the stocktaking is displayed for the Observer by comparing, in the Observer's terms, the monetary or value of each entity with its matching market price, affording the opportunity for the Observer to discover from such ranking list his choice/decision, regarding the least overpriced entity, the most overpriced entity, and the ones sorted/ranked in between.

In addition, the present organization collects data from Observer, regarding the relative importance of qualities to such Observer, of a chosen entity, calculates the assumed price of the Average unit, then equates those specific, existent entities' to those of the Average unit, on such quantified qualities, then based on the outcome of the data so collected, calculates in monetary or other terms the differences between the existent entities and the Average unit, then lists for the Observer, in terms of the Observer, in order of monetary or other comparable values, referenced extant entities in or out of the cited field, based on the outcome of the collected data and said comparisons, then locates sellers of said specific entities where the asking prices are at, below or near these particular entities' so computed pecuniary values, notifying interested potential buyers of such sellers' contact information, and vice versa.

Further, a special, novel advantage of the present invention is its collecting data to determine the quality or qualities of entities and the relative importance of the quality or qualities of these entities, additionally instituting the deductive market price of the assumed Average entity, which unit, in its group, is calculated average on one, more, or all its said qualities, then it compares said existent entities to this said Average entity, on quantified quality or qualities to discover and measure the differences between existent entities and the assumed Average entity, further determining the ranking order by eminence or other condition, of these existent entities, based on the results of having individually compared them to referenced Average unit, and then expressing resulting value divergences of said existent entities in pecuniary or other comparative terms, displaying such ranking list for the Observer's consideration, so that the resulting pecuniary or other values-display, facilitates comparison of entities in different fields, such as, for instance, allowing comparison of the actual worth of a unique automobile with that of a specialized vacation and so on, as now calculated INDEPENDENT of their respective prices, these displayed values-order enabling one to decide his favored choice for his fixed or other investment, since one is now capable to compare the respective differences in total values with the appertaining prices (costs) of buying a specific car, and/or with taking a particular vacation, and/or with carrying out a given home improvement task, and so on, making it possible to select the most preferred setting, since the divergent actual sum values of the contemplated car, vacation or home improvement project and so on, are suddenly expressed in monetary or other symmetrical, corresponding terms, and so become comparable as displayed, making discoverable the respective differences between the financially expressed values versus the prices of that car, vacation or home improvement job, easing the genuine worth-comparison of things until now thought uncomparable, such displayed value-ranking order enabling one to decide: if taking that vacation worth $5,000, for sale for $4,000, is a better choice than completing that home improvement project worth $5,000, for sale for $3000, and so on.

Another advantage of this invention is its collecting data to determine the relative importance of attributes of entities, ciphering the deductive price of an entity which is average on its qualities, such average entity, comparing the qualities of existent entities to those of the Average, measuring and expressing the discovered divergences of the qualities between the Average and the existent entities, then comparing the values of the existent entities and displaying them in order of their worth or other quality or combination of qualities of each, then by comparing each entity's value to its market price, displaying them from “most overpriced” to “least overpriced” entities, or vice versa, or listing them in order of “most money saved” to “most money squandered,” on each, according to the differences in their respective prices versus their companion values, and by discovering the value system of a Observer, and sorting these entities in order of their relative attractiveness to the Observer, called Your Value, and/or having discovered the value system of the average person, and sorting these entities for a specific Observer in order of their attractiveness for the typical, optimally informed individual, called True Value: free choice, based on ideal knowledge, is now facilitated.

The present system also accumulates data to obtain the proportional importance of attributes of an entity, and expresses the relative levels of respective implications in percentage or other terms, while in the probed group of entities, the assumed monetary value of the average entity is calculated by it, which said Average being Non-Subjective Valuing's Yardstick, representing the “100% unit”, or the one that rates a “5” on the scale of 0-10, 10 being best, or “3” on a graduated table of 1-5, and so on. The present method, on a percentage or other basis, compares existent entities with the Average on what these entities are, have and do. The respective values of test entities are calculated, independent of their holding market prices, by calculating and expressing in monetary or other comparative terms the sum quality percentage (or other) divergence between what each existent entity is, has and does, with what the calculated Average entity is, has and does. Once we know that the average entity in a given group is worth $80, for example: we have the relevant Yardstick for that group with which to measure all existent entities in that group, by comparing the weighted qualities of the existent entities to those of the average entity. The resulting pecuniary or other value differences between existent entities and the average entity are measured, translated into value differences and are then displayed for the observer, and since the Average always represents 100%. As a way of illustrating by example: if the assumed total value of the entity with average qualities turns out to be $80, then an existent entity which is calculated over all to be 10% better than the average entity, by having compared its qualities to those of the average entity, is generally assumed to be worth $88, regardless if its market price is $70, $100, zero, or whatever. (Of course, to an individual, “10% better” might not be worth 10% more money, so the scale is variable, but must be equitable and constant.) As another, extreme, improbable example for how this works, in the unlikely event that somebody gives you, no strings attached, $5 to accept an entity from him, which entity by itself is calculated to be worth $80 to you, you just received $85 for nothing.

The present method in addition piles up data, concerning how important certain qualities of an entity are to a unique Observer, be such Observer an individual buyer, seller, arbitrator, vendor, advisor service, appraiser, a group, or an entire society; converting said data to appropriate size slices of a pie, or other depiction of commensurate relative weights, learning how much more or less important certain qualities of an entity are to the specific Observer, the totality, of all in play qualities, on paper comprising 100% of the entity's constitution. It then considers said Observer's expressed willingness to overpay for specific attributes, depending on how relatively desirable these attributes are to the Observer, including how much savings for how much less (or more) quality is agreeable to (or desirable by) that Observer, and by computing the Observer's “willingness-to-overpay-for-what-is-desired-to-what extent,” the so-called Attractiveness Scale is established. For example, this system discovers and displays, that for a unique observer, a vacation that is worth $1,000, but costs $1,200, might be more desirable for this particular observer, (and appear higher on said observer's sort list), than a vacation that is worth $800, but costs $300. Further to illustrate by another example, for another particular observer, with a different value system, and/or different available funds, a vacation that is worth $800, but costs $300, might be on top of his unique displayed analyzed itemization. The exhibited list may be done by the present method to effect sorting by one or more specified, quantified or unquantified qualities. Classifying and categorization can be by single or combined qualities. For instance, this method can sort by cost alone, or by worth alone, or by percentage of savings alone, or by actual money saved or squandered, alone, or by a combination of selected two or more attributes, such as, by way of example, length of vacations and their prices, or quality of food and the expected weather conditions on “ocean liner cruise comparisons,” or the safety record of airlines combined with their respective records of being on time, the relative friendliness of their crews and stretch leg-room in front of their seats in tourist class, and so on, the relative importance of each attribute figured in comparison with all the other considered quantified attributes, expressed in sub charts and then in charts showing the final decision guide list.

This invention also takes in facts to determine the relative importance of attributes of entities, collect the consensus of the experts and laymen concerning the rating of subjective qualities of those entities, learns the relative importance the experts consider the lay-persons' opinions should weigh, and discovers the appropriate value to which the amateurs believe the experts' opinions should be considered, then split both numbers, or use some other mathematical formula to reconcile the two resulting average opinions, to incorporate it into calculating the conclusive relative importance of such individual properties, further calculating the deductive price of an entity which is average on its qualities. Who qualifies as an expert and who is considered an amateur, are established by accurate surveys. Now, compare the qualities of existent entities with those of the Average. Measure, display and express in monetary or other comparable terms the discovered divergences of the qualities between the Average and the existent entities in descending or ascending eminence or other order.

The present method instructs you how to collect data regarding the relative importance of qualities of a chosen entity. Then determine the assumed price of the average entity in its field. Compare the quantified qualities of existent entities to those of the Average entity. Specify such differences between the existent entities and the Average entity. Display list of those existent entities in order of their compared values. Search out those who offer the existent entities for sale at, below or near those values, and match them with buyers, and vice versa.

The shown organization accumulates data points from Observers regarding how each Observer asserts his or her perception of how relatively important characteristics of an entity are to each said Observer. An Observer can be a buyer, seller or appraising vendor, for instance. Then the following sequence is done. Calculate the assumed price of average entity in its field, compare the quantified or unquantified qualities of such entities with those of the Average entity, figure in monetary or other terms the differences between the existent entities and the Average entity, display for the Observers the existent entities in order of said entities' respective values or other deviations, accumulate and record the input of each Observer in reference to his or her opinion as to what extent the Average is overvalued or undervalued, then calculate the Observers' average input, yielding the opinion of the average Observer, and/or conduct a demographically correct survey of individuals as to how each perceives the Average to be overestimated or devalued, then average their opinions to unearth the communal number to affect the general calculation to produce Societal Opinion or True Value, for each said probed entity.

This invention moreover compiles data from Observers regarding how each Observer asserts his or her perception of how relatively important characteristics of an entity are to each such Observer, reckons the estimated price of the assumptive average entity in its field, compares the quantified or unquantified qualities of the test entities with those of the Average entity, calculates in monetary or other terms the differences between the existent entities and the Average entity, displays for the Observers in their respective terms, the existent entities in order of value or other differences both as to the specific Observer and as to Society as a whole, the latter representing the calculation based on the input of the typical Observer, conduct accurate surveys to learn what characteristics or properties certain attributes of entities ought to have, to learn from the Observers their take on what a certain attribute actually “IS.” For instance, what constitutes “brakes” of an automobile: what “brakes” should be, have and do? This is to constitute a sub-chart, ultimately to determine total value. For example, how relatively important are various characteristics of “automobile brakes “such as reliability, easy reach, stopping distance, swerve, frequency of repair, and so on? This sub-pie (or other denoting) becomes part of the final calculation of what something is worth, since what it “should be,” whether for an individual, or society, must be part of the Average, in its more perfect form.

The present invention as well garners facts regarding the relative importance of qualities in a group of entities, determines the simulated price of the assumed average entity in the group, compares the qualities of existent entities with those of the Average, specifies value differences fixed between the existent entities and the Average, and names individually and displays the existent entities in order of their values or other characteristics, at least one characteristic selected. (For instance, “customer satisfaction,” and/or “economy.”)

This method further is able to accumulate data from a corporate, collective, communal or individual Observer, regarding the proportional impressiveness to each Observer, of qualities of entities in a provided field or group, each Observer-rated quality possessing the possibility of being applicable to all existent entities in the selected field or group, determines the ostensible value of the Average, the Average being the entity in the selected field or group which entity is assumptively average on its qualities, then match the existent entities with the Average by weighing their respective parallel qualities against those of the Average, then compute and display esteem-differences in terms of the respective expressed value systems of the Observers, as previously discovered between the existent entities and the Average entity, considering one or more quantitative differences.

Another advantage of this method is as follows. Amass data from a corporate, collective, communal or individual Observer, regarding the relative importance to such observer, of qualities of entities in a provided field or group. Each Observer-rated quality must have the ability to attach itself to any member of the selected group of entities, then determine the fictitious value of the Average, which Average is the entity in the chosen field or group which entity is assumptively average on its selected or discoverable qualities, compare existent entities with the Average entity, by weighing parallel qualities of existent entities and those of the Average entity, then considering one or more quantitative differences between the existent entities and the Average entity, calculate, sort and display the calculated worth-differences in descending or ascending order, in terms of the respective expressed rating arrangements of a Observer, as previously discovered.

Additionally, this invention accumulates data from Observers, regarding the relative importance to each Observer, of a quality or qualities of entities in a group, where each quantifiable quality or qualities must have the ability to go with any other member entity of the group, be the group members objects, professional individuals, companies, mayors, vacations, experiences, philosophies, philosophers, doormen, buses, bus rides, or whatever and whoever. Such quantifiable quality or qualities may include price, popularity, true market value, true relative value, True Value, Your Value, desirability, savings in percentage terms, savings in actual monetary terms, customer-satisfaction, opinion of experts, height, buying experience, education, speed, size, power, kindness, influence, social skills, beauty and/or any other quantifiable quality, at least one quality selected, determine the measure of the deductive Average entity, which is the entity in the group which entity is average on all its one or more quantifiable quality or qualities. Rank participating entities by comparing the quality or qualities of each such participating entity with that or those of the Average entity. Display ranked entities, on one or more, uncompounded or combined worth-differences, as secured by comparing the quality or qualities of the participating entities with that or those of the Average entity.

This invention further compiles data regarding the relative importance of attributes of used automobiles from prospective buyers, dealerships, auctioneers, newspaper ads, and/or other sources, including statistical facts and/or from your own experience that take into consideration prospective buyers' preferences as to popularity of model,” “customer satisfaction,” “opinion of the experts,” “resale value,” “reputation,” and so on, and the importance of the attributes relative to each other, on the average, on a percentage or other basis. Utilizing surveys and/or other methods, decide what the average specific car, such as an assumed average 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon, would currently fetch at market. This notional vehicle is, by any other name, the Measure, the Average, the Standard, or Average 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon, which putative vehicle has expected mileage, average tire wear, unexceptional interior condition, everyday exterior status and likely engine condition, and so on, that is: it is average (100%) in all its assumptive relevant attributes and corresponding market price. This is the Yardstick or Average car. Using a speculative example, pretend that the Average 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon, if existed, would currently sell at retail for $1000. As a car dealer, when buying a car, consider—per this explanatory example—what the average person would pay for the particular 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon you are considering buying for resale, by comparing that specific 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon's detailed attributes in terms of the taste of the average person, to the parallel “average” attributes of the Average model, using Non-Subjective Valuing by listing your judgments (0-10) regarding the parallel qualities of the unique, considered test model. For instance, rate the interior condition of the car you are about to buy. You can then consider the difference in dollar value, plus or minus, between the value to the average buyer, of the interior quality of the particular test vehicle you just rated on that quality, to that of the Average car. For example, if the average buyer is willing to pay $200 for average interior quality for a 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon, then if the quality of the interior of the test car is 25% better than average, then the retail value of that one quality of the test car is $250. You continue to rate as many qualities as you wish to compare each such quality of the test car to that of the parallel quality of the Average car, at the end to get a single, conclusive, comprehensive dollar figure as to what the average buyer would pay for that specific 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon. Let us suppose that after you calculate your reconditioning and all your other related expenses, you know that in order to make a proper profit, you can price this vehicle for sale at a minimum of $950. Now you can figure the maximum amount you can pay for it, whether the transaction is at auction, trade-in, wholesale or private party setting. Let us pretend that you are ready to pay $300 for it and you are successful in picking it up for $300. After reconditioning, etc., you enter this particular 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon on your inventory, listing the present condition of its attributes, at $950 retail. A customer comes on your lot, looking for a used station wagon. You ask her to list her preferences, concerning qualities that are important to her, and the maximum amount of money she is willing to part with. You can then apply her value system to all the relevant vehicles on your lot, and show her only those station wagons which are priced lower than what they are worth to her! For instance, if she has $1000 to spend, after her preferences of color, manufacturer, mechanical-, exterior-, interior-, tire, etc. conditions, quality of guarantee, expected resale value, roominess, etc., etc., etc., are known to you, the very 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon on your lot could be worth $1,150 to her! That means that she could save $150 by buying that vehicle, while you are selling it at the price you wanted for it, and everybody is happy. Those vehicles where she would “lose money” are not presented as irrelevant. This saves time for her to choose and eliminates bargaining: making everybody's life easy.

The present method as well compiles data regarding characteristics, attributes and properties of a specific used automobile, such as a 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon, at least one characteristic, attribute, or property (such as “customer satisfaction” and/or “resale value” for example) selected. Choose the relative importance of the characteristics, attributes and properties relative to each other on a percentage or other basis. The in play one or more characteristics, attributes and properties add up to 100% of the contemplated qualities, although you may include a percentage for “attributes not considered,” for instance when selecting only one described attribute. (Example: “Customer Satisfaction” 62%; “Other Properties” 38%). Decide upon, by surveys or other methods, if the exact average 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon existed, how much it would fetch at market currently, in wholesale, retail, auction, private party, trade in, and/or other transactions regionally, nationally and/or internationally. In each instance, this is the Measure, the Average 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon in the in play settings, which putative vehicle has regular mileage, average tire wear, usual interior, exterior and engine condition, that is: it is average in all its assumptive relevant attributes and corresponding price. Using a speculative example, assume that the Average 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon, if existed, would sell at retail for $1000. To a particular observer, (buyer or seller), the attribute of “mechanical condition” might be worth 55%; “interior condition” could have a value of 20%, “extra equipment” might be important to 22%, and “location” to 3% or whatever numbers your accurate research unearths.

Further, this method achieves the following: Cumulate data regarding characteristics, attributes and properties of a specific used automobile, for example: a 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon, at least one characteristic, attribute, or property selected. Choose the relative importance of the characteristics, attributes and properties relative to each other on a percentage or other basis. The in play one or more characteristics, attributes and properties add up to 100% of the contemplated qualities, although you may include a percentage for “attributes not considered,” for instance when selecting only one described attribute. Decide upon, by surveys or other methods, what the average specific car, such as an assumed average 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon, would currently fetch at market. This is, by any other name, the Measure, the Average, the Standard, or Average 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon, which putative vehicle has expected mileage, average tire wear, usual interior, exterior and engine conditions, and so on, that is: it is average in all its assumptive relevant attributes and corresponding market price: it is the present invention's Yardstick car. Using a speculative example, pretend that the Average 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon, if existed, would sell at retail for $1000. To a perceiver in a specific setting, the attribute of “mechanical condition” might be worth 55% per this observer's value system; “interior condition” could be worth 20%, “extra equipment” might be important to 22%, and “color” could have a significance of 3%. In this case therefore, from the point of view of this beholder/estimator (could be an online company offering appraisals, a car dealership, a prospective customer, an insurance company, a lender: any commentator), staying with the $1000 example for the average vehicle, the particular observer having these set preferences, then values average mechanical condition at $550; allocates $200 for average interior quality; $220 for a vehicle outfitted with customary extras; and $30 for a car having a color that is neither better nor worse than ordinary. On the basis of the value system of this observer, here is calculating the retail value of a specific, unique, existent 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon that happens to be better than average on its “mechanical condition” by 20%, worse than customary on its “interior condition” by 10%, features standard (100%) “extra equipment,” and has a “color” that is 10% better than regular: $550+20%=$660 (mechanical condition); $200-$29=$190 (interior quality); $220 for the customary (normal) extras; and $30+$3=$33 (color). For this observer, this particular test 1998 Ford Taurus Station Wagon, is worth $1,103 retail.

Further, this invention achieves the following: Collect data regarding the relative importance of qualities, these qualities being applicable to all entities in a selected group of entities. Determine the fictitious value of the Average, which is the entity in the group assumptively average on its qualities. Compare the qualities of existent entities to those of the Average. Specify value differences fixed between the existent entities and the Average. Name individually and display the existent entities in order of their respective relative values to the Average.

Other advantages of the present method include the following. Collect data regarding the relative importance of qualities of a chosen entity. Determine the assumed price of the Average, which is the deductive average entity in its field. Compare the quantified qualities of existent entities to those of the Average. Specify resulting differences between the existent entities and the Average. Display list of the existent entities in order of their comparable values. Average out the choices of each Observer to learn the value system of the Average Observer and display the choice of the average Observer to allow individual Observers to compare their own unique preferences to the value system/choice of the Average Observer. If a demographically correct survey is conducted, Societal Choice, or True Value, may then be displayed.

The present invention also envisions the following set of steps. Collect data regarding the relative importance of qualities of a chosen entity. Calculate the price of the average entity in its field. Compare the quantified qualities of existent entities to those of the Average entity. Specify such differences between the existent entities and the Average entity. Display list of the existent entities in order of their comparable values. Search out those who offer the existent entities for sale at, below or near their Non-Subjective Valuing-calculated values, and match them with buyers, and vice versa.

Non-Subjective Valuing further includes the following. Collect data from professionals and/or experts in their field, regarding how each such accomplished individual or competent entity asserts his, her or its perception regarding the relative importance of characteristics, properties or attributes of an entity, in other words, how relatively important each referenced characteristic, property or attribute appear to each such professional and/or to their customers, as to the relative worth of said attributes, based on such professionals' or experts' experience in the field. For example, learn from car dealers, how relatively important are various characteristics, properties or attributes of a new and/or used car, to them and/or to their customers; or learn from doctors, how relatively important each characteristic, property or attribute of a doctor is to doctors and/or to their patients, specifically and/or generally, and so on. Based on such research and calculations, specify the differences between the existent entities and the Average entity, converting such differences into graphic or other understandable representation. Display list of the existent entities in order of their comparable values.

The present invention also teaches the following. Collect data from relevant professionals and/or experts in their field, such as car dealers if the object is the evaluation of new or used car prices or values, to establish, based on their experience in the field, the deductive price or value of the assumed average used or new vehicle generally, or average unique make/year/model automobile specifically, (example: 1998 Mercury Sable) or collect data from doctors if the object is the establishment of the fictitious price or value for an average doctor's visit, or visit with a unique medical specialist, (example: heart surgeon), and so on, the deductive or real average general or specific unit with its appertaining assumed price or value, in any relevant field, called the Average or some other name. Collect data from amateur, non-professional and/or professional Observers regarding their contemplated automobiles, individually to compare the unique cars' parallel characteristics to those of the average vehicle, on some equitable basis, whether the Observers are interested in selling, buying, trading or obtaining or providing a loan or insurance on a specific automobile, and supply the Observers, Vendors or Consumers with the projected market price or actual estimated value of their unique cars, the calculation being based on having compared the parallel condition or conditions of the unique test automobiles (probed doctors) to the parallel condition or conditions of the average car (average doctor) on a quantitative or other basis. Display results of the calculations in monetary or other terms, reflecting the differences between the existent unique test cars and the Average car, or the existent unique test doctors and the Average doctor.

Another embodiment is comprised of the following steps. Collect data to determine the relative importance of attributes of entities. Calculate the value of attributes which are, for whatever reason, hard to understand by the lay person, considering what specific properties are, have and/or do for the average person and/or for a unique individual, by collecting data regarding the typical individual's value system and the value system of a unique Observer, the calculations being done as if the average individual or the unique Observer fully understood in the Observers' own, separate terms what the attribute is, has and/or does, and include these collected facts in the conclusive respective calculations.

Further unique teachings of the present invention include: collecting data from an individual or community, a person, or a group of people, rating in some way the quality or qualities of an entity, including using the methods 0-10, 10 being most important, 0 being of no significance, 5 being of average portent, or 1-5, 5 being most important, 1 being of no import, and 5 being of average significance to the rater or raters. Divide each rating by 100^(th) of the total number of qualities rated. Each quality now has its adjunctive “pie slice size,” expressing in percentage, or other relative, comparable terms, graphic or otherwise, according to the value system of the individual or group, each referenced quality's particular relative importance in reference to the entity.

Further teachings of this method include: Amass data to determine the relative importance of attributes of entities. Calculate the deductive price of an entity which is average on its qualities. Compare the qualities of existent entities to those of the Average entity. Measure and express the discovered divergences of the qualities between the Average and the existent entities. Compare the values of the existent entities and display them in order of the worth or other quality, or combination of qualities, of each.

Another advantage of using Non-Subjective Valuing is the following. Determine the relative importance of attributes of entities. Calculate the deductive value of an entity which is average on its qualities. Compare the qualities of existent entities to those of the Average. Measure and display the divergences of the qualities between the Average and the existent entities.

New teachings of this invention include the succeeding description. Collect data to determine the relative importance of attributes of entities. Calculate the value of attributes which are, for whatever reason, hard to understand by the lay person, considering what specific properties are, have and/or do for the average person and/or for a unique individual, by collecting data regarding the typical individual's value system and the value system of the unique Observer, the calculations being done as if the average individual or the unique Observer fully understood in said Observers' own, separate terms, what the attribute is, has and/or does, and include these collected facts in the conclusive respective calculations. Calculate the deductive price of an entity which is average on its qualities, which is this invention's measuring standard. Compare the qualities of existent entities to those of the Average entity. Measure and express the discovered divergences of the qualities between the Average entity and the existent entities. Compare the values of the existent entities and display them in some order according to the worth, or other quality, or combination of qualities, of each.

Further teachings of this method include as follows. Determine the relative importance of selected attribute or attributes of an entity. Set the value of an entity which is average on its referenced selected attribute or attributes, such average entity may be called the Average, or some other name, or no name, as long as that average unit represents the standard of measurement. Compare the attribute or attributes of existent entities to those of the average entity. Measure and display divergences of the selected attribute or attributes between that or those of the average entity and the existent entities.

Other unique advantages of this invention include the following. Collect data to determine the relative importance of attributes of entities. Collect experts' opinion s and laymen's opinions concerning their respective rating of the qualities of such entities, using 0-10, 10 being best, or some comparative other method. Learn the relative importance the experts consider the lay-persons' opinions should weigh, and discover the appropriate value to which the amateurs believe the experts' opinions should be considered, then split both numbers, or use some other mathematical formula, to reconcile the two collective results, to incorporate into calculating the conclusive relative importance of such individual attributes. Calculate the deductive price of an entity which is average on its one, some or all qualities, that assumed entity being the measuring standard which may be called the Average. Compare such qualities of existent entities to those of such average entity, measuring standard or Average. Measure and display expressed in monetary or other comparable terms the discovered divergences of such qualities between such average entity and such existent entities in descending or ascending eminence or other order.

Other novel advantages of this invention include as follows. Accumulate data to determine the relative importance of attributes of entities. Calculate the deductive price of an entity which is average on its qualities, such average entity called the Average, or measuring standard, which is in reality the assumed average unit of which the deductive price is calculated. Compare such qualities of existent entities to those of such Average. Measure and express the discovered divergences of such qualities between such Average and such existent entities. By comparing each such entity's value to its actual market price, display such entities

-   -   from most overpriced to least overpriced entities, or vice         versa.

Additional fresh advantages of this innovation is made up of the following. Determine the relative importance of selected attributes or properties of entities. Compile data to calculate the deductive (or real) market price of the entity which is average on its selected qualities or properties, called the Average, or measuring standard,” (or some other name,) which imaginary (or real) Average unit (whether it has a name or not) is in reality the assumed average entity of which the deductive (or real) market price is calculated. Collect data to compare such selected parallel qualities of existent entities with those of the Average entity. Measure and express the discovered divergences of the qualities between the Average and the existent entities. Display the so calculated assumed market prices for the existent entities. They may be called true market values.

Further teachings of this method include as follows. Accumulate data to determine the relative importance of attributes of entities. Calculate the value of attributes which are for whatever reason hard to understand by the lay person, considering what specific properties are, have and/or do for the average person and/or for a unique individual, by collecting data regarding the typical individual's value system and the value system of the unique Observer, the calculations being done as if the average individual or the unique Observer fully understood in the Observers' own, separate terms what the attribute is, has and/or does, and include these collected facts in the conclusive respective calculations. Calculate the deductive price of an entity which is average on its qualities, such average entity called the Average, or measuring standard, or other name. Compare the qualities of existent entities to those of the Average. Measure and express the discovered divergences of the qualities between the Average and the existent entities. By comparing each such entity's value to its market price, display such entities from most overpriced to least overpriced entities, or vice versa.

Other teachings of this invention include as follows. Compile data to determine the relative importance of attributes of entities. Calculate the value of attributes which are for whatever reason hard to understand by the lay person, considering what specific properties are, have and/or do for the average person and/or for a unique individual, by collecting data regarding the typical individual's value system and the value system of the unique Observer, those calculations being done as if the average individual or the unique Observer fully understood in the Observers' own, separate terms what the attribute is, has and/or does, and include these collected facts in the conclusive respective calculations. Calculate the deductive price of an entity which is average on its qualities, such average entity called the Average, or measuring standard, or other name. Compare the qualities of existent entities to those of the Average. Measure and express the discovered divergences of the qualities between the Average and the existent entities. Display list of entities in order of most money saved to least money saved on each, according to the differences in their respective prices versus their companion values.

Further advantages to this novel system include the following. Take in facts to determine the proportional importance of properties of entities. Compute the value of attributes which are for whatever reason hard to understand by the lay person, considering what specific properties are, have and/or do for the average person and/or for a unique individual, by collecting data regarding the typical individual's value system and the value system of the unique Observer, the calculations being done as if the average individual or the unique Observer fully understood in the Observers' own, separate terms what the attribute is, has and/or does, and include these collected facts in the conclusive respective calculations. Calculate the deductive price of an entity which is average on its qualities, such average entity called the Average, or measuring standard, or other name. Compare the qualities of existent entities to those of the Average. Measure and express the discovered divergences of the qualities between the Average and the existent entities. Compare the values of the existent entities and display them in some order according to the worth or other quality or combination of qualities of each. Discover the value system of a Observer, and sort the entities in order of attractiveness to the Observer, called Your Value.

Another novel usefulness of Non-Subjective Valuing include the following. Garner data considering the proportionable significance of qualities of a chosen entity. Determine the assumed price of the average entity in its field. Compare the quantified qualities of existent entities to those of the Average entity. Specify such differences between the existent entities and the Average entity. Display list of the existent entities in order of their the comparable values as compared to the average entity and to each other. Search out those who offer referenced existent entities for sale at, below or near their Non-Subjective Valuing-calculated values, and match them with buyers, and vice versa.

More advantages to the present system include the collecting of data regarding the relative importance of qualities of a chosen entity. Determine the assumed price of the putative average entity in its field. Compare the quantified qualities of existent entities to those of said Average entity. Specify such differences between the existent entities and the Average entity. Provide and display list of the existent entities in order of their comparable values.

Another new betterment in valuing is achieved by this method as follows. Accumulate data regarding the relative importance of qualities of a chosen entity. Determine the assumed price of the Average entity in its field. Compare the quantified qualities of existent entities to those of the Average entity. Specify such differences between the existent entities and the Average entity. Display list of the existent entities in order of their comparable values. Average out the choices of each Observer to learn the value system of the Average Observer and display it to allow individual Observers to compare their own preferences to the value system of the Average Observer. If a demographically correct survey is conducted, including in the averaging individuals' choices, Societal, or True Value may then be displayed.

Further, Collect data regarding the relative importance of qualities, the qualities being applicable to all entities in a selected group of entities. Determine the fictitious value of the entity in referenced group which is average on its qualities. Compare the qualities of existent entities to those of the Average entity. Specify value differences fixed between the existent entities and the Average entity. Name individually and display the existent entities in order of their respective values as compared with the Average entity.

More advantages to Non-Subjective Valuing include the accumulating of data involving the relative importance of qualities of a preferred entity. Determine the assumed price of the Average entity in said group of preferred entities. Compare the quantified qualities of existent entities in said group with those of the Average entity. Qualify the differences between the existent entities and the Average entity. Display sorted list of the existent entities in order of their calculated values. Find matching buyers and sellers based on the calculated values.

Other novel advantages of this system include the following. Compile data from professionals and/or experts in their field, and/or their customers, regarding how each such accomplished individual, competent entity, or their clients, assert his, her, their or its perception regarding the relative importance of characteristics, properties or attributes of an entity, in other words, how relatively important each such characteristic, property or attribute appear to each such professional and/or to their customers, based on such professionals' or experts' experience in the field. For example, learn from car dealers, how relatively important are various characteristics, properties or attributes of a new and/or used car, to them and/or to their customers; or learn from doctors, how relatively important each such characteristic, property or attribute of a doctor is to doctors and/or to their patients, specifically and/or generally, and so on. Collect data from such relevant professionals and/or experts in their field, such as car dealers if the object is the evaluation of new or used car prices or values, to establish, based on their experience in the field, the deductive price or value of the assumed average or Average used or new vehicle generally, or the average or Average unique make/year/model automobile specifically, (example: 1998 Mercury Sable) or collect data from doctors if the object is the establishment of the fictitious price or value for an average doctor's visit, or a visit with a unique medical specialist, (example: heart surgeon), and so on, such deductive or real average general or specific unit with its appertaining assumed price or value, in any relevant field, called the Average or some other name. Collect data from amateur, non-professional or professional observers regarding their contemplated automobiles, individually to compare such unique cars' parallel characteristics with those of the average vehicle, on some equitable basis, whether the observers are interested in selling, buying, trading, appraising, or obtaining or providing a loan or insurance on a specific automobile, and supply the observers, dealers, vendors and/or their customers with the projected market price, or actual estimated value of their such unique cars, the calculation being based on having compared such parallel condition or conditions of such unique test automobiles (doctors) to such parallel condition or conditions of the average car (doctor) on a quantitative or other basis. Display results of such calculations in monetary or other terms, reflecting the differences between such existent unique test cars and the Average car, or the existent unique test doctors and the Average doctor.

Further, this invention teaches the compilation of data regarding the assumed average market price for a specific entity, such as a certain used make/model/year automobile that is assumed average in its attributes, properties and/or characteristics, such as mileage, exterior, interior and mechanical condition, extras, color and so on, called the Average make/year/model. Compare the attributes, properties and/or characteristics, such as mileage, exterior, interior and mechanical condition, and so on, of the Average make/year/model with the parallel quantified or unquantified attributes, properties and/or characteristics such as mileage, exterior, interior and mechanical condition, extras, color and so on, of matching existent make/year/models, such as those of actual used automobiles of the same make/model/year as the Average one, and note the differences in monetary or other values based on quantified divergences. Collect data from amateur, non-professional, professional or other Observers regarding the parallel attributes, properties and/or characteristics, such as mileage, exterior, interior and mechanical condition, and so on, concerning unique existent automobiles the Observers own or contemplate to buy, sell, trade, write insurance for, loan money on, and so forth, individually to compare the unique cars' parallel characteristics to those of the average car, and supply the Observers or customers with the market price or actual estimated value of the unique existing cars, the calculation based on having compared the parallel conditions of the unique existing automobiles with the parallel condition or conditions of the average car, at least one condition selected, on a quantitative or other basis. Calculate and display in monetary or other terms the differences between the existent unique cars or other entities and the Average car or the Average entity.

Calculate the deductive price of an entity which is average on its qualities, such average entity being this invention's measuring standard, compare the qualities of existent entities to those of the Average entity. Measure and express the discovered divergences of the qualities between the Average and the existent entities. Discover the value system of the relevant observer, and sort the entities in order of attractiveness in terms of the Observer or in terms of Society.

This method includes the collecting of data from a Observer, regarding the relative importance to each Observer, of selected qualities of entities in a provided group, where each such selected quality must have the ability to attach to any other member of the provided group, determine the assumed value of the entity in the group which is average on all its selected qualities, at least one selected, rank measured presented entities by comparing selected qualities of each presented entity with those of the Average entity, display ranked entities on one or more computed quantitative worth-differences, as fixed by comparing the selected qualities of the presented entities with those of the Average entity.

4. Further Stipulations of Non-Subjective Valuing

The present method of translating any number between 0-10 (such as 6.842) into precise percentages relating to the average (“5” or 100%) unit is especially useful in case of many qualities. Dividing a pie into many slices is no big problem, just as it is no problem for somebody to rate many qualities for importance 0-10, 10 being most important.

When we ask 1500 people to respond to a few questions each, it is easy to learn how important to society the quality of Success Rate is concerning HMOs. For example, an individual, or a group can choose the qualities it wants to rate. They can be specific to the group, the most important ones, or whatever.

The system works the same, except that unless all societal discoverable characteristics of an entity are quantified, the results are always partial to the individual or group that selects the attributes to be rated.

By employing a pie or other representative system, the present invention may always convert ratings to percentages for accurate comparison. One may apply this pie or bar chart system to any specific group, for instance “computers for under $1200,” or “computers made by Apple,” or “computers sold in this store right now,” or “all computers in the world today,” etc. The system works perfectly well once you tell it the perimeters which interest you.

Translating “excellent” or “0” into percentages is much easier than to require people to express their assessment that way. (“0”) always only symbolizes the lowest actual number (never zero) which matching number is then used for calculating). In case of many components, today none of us know our own pie, bar, or other chart either, but this fact is not generally understood.

The present invention, by employing the “dividing 100% system” helps all of us to learn what our own preferences are. 100% represents all the qualities of an entity in which we are interested in. If we want to learn the True Value of something, all discoverable characteristics of an entity must be quantified in our specific terms. If we leave out anything: the appraisal will be partial, and provides true relative value. When it comes to even a few automobile characteristics for example, without this 100% chart system, it is very hard for an inquirer to say “the feature of Reliability is important to me to a degree of 50%,” and much easier for the explorer simply to say or identify a number 0-10, 10 being most important, for each of the comprising attributes.

The reason the present invention uses 0-10, is because this scale has an exact average, which is 5 here. People usually rate 5 what they think is average, but in the customary 1-10 system, that is numerically incorrect, of course. Since in the present system we are measuring everything compared to the average, a true average number is important, whatever actual number it turns out to be. If the average is 7.38, than that number is used as the 100%, or standard, yardstick number.

Both in cases of readily available numbers, and not immediately apparent numbers, this invention interprets characteristics as percentages relevant to the average 100%. For instance, if the average car has a top speed of 100 mph, then a car which has a top speed of 110 mph, is 10% faster. If a test computer is 12% faster than the average (100%) computer, then—all other things being equal, which they never are—if the average computer sells for $1,000, our test computer is worth $1,120.

Without the Average, this invention does not work. The deductive Average computer is the one in the specified group that is average in its qualities and its assumed selling price. The contemporary (changing) calculated market price for what the average entity would or should sell, is always the starting, standard, yardstick number, as we must compare value to something: it cannot and does not exist in a vacuum. The linchpin is what at the moment, people are willing to pay for the average entity.

To many, it is hard to believe that attributes such as “Reliability” can be measured exactly and expressed by numbers, but they can be. There is no attribute which is not quantifiable. None. For instance, once society or an individual observer, defines what “reliability” means in a computer, we can measure that reliability of each computer in our target group (“in the world,” “in this store today,” etc.) and compute the average reliability among those in their group. The average reliability equals 100% in this system. 100% stands for average reliability in any group. Further, reliability, in this invention, is not necessarily rated by experts. It is computer users who decide what they consider reliability to encompass, and an individual observer should decide what he considers to be reliability. What the experts say is important to a certain extent, and society and the individual rate the relative importance of expert opinion, of course. That is an important slice of the pies or the bars, for an individual or the entire society. But this invention claims that the true relative value of something must be based on what it is, has and does for the inquirer, not on any other factor.

For some, reliability may include, to various degrees, how long the computer will work before it has to be repaired, its sturdiness, how often it has to be restarted because it freezes, how often it makes mistakes, how it reacts to new software or hardware, how steady its relationship with various printers, modems, monitors, the Internet, and so on. This sub pie or bar chart must be considered for truly accurate measuring, and of course “opinion of the experts” is an important value affecting element to be rated.

The Average changes with time, depending on the examined group, including its qualities and its price. Its price and its qualities always depend entirely on the prices and qualities of the members of its group. For instance, both the price and characteristics of the Average among cheap computers are very different than they are for all computers, or for expensive computers, or for large computers, or for computers available in this store today, etc. And their characteristics as well as their average price change with time. Yet, in order to get actual worth, the Average computer at any given moment is the one with which all other computers must be compared, within or without their own group. If one wants to know which $1,000 computer is worth $1,200 to him, and which $1,000 computer is worth $900 to him, the present system has the answer. Non-Subjective Valuing can also tell a seeker if a $50,000 computer is actually worth $40,000, $30,000 or $60,000 to that searcher.

If one wishes to compare $5000 computers, their Average computer has very specific characteristics and price. There, the average speed and reliability is compared to those of all the other $5000 computers. Of course, this system can easily compare, value and rank computers in a group of computers where the cheapest one costs $800 and the most expensive one is priced at $700,000. The computers in this group have an average price, an average speed, an average capability and an average everything else, and of course, the price for such Average computer is easy to calculate.

Composer Zoltan Kodaly invented the movable “do” in solfeggio. If the “do” can be shifted, representing the current foundation pitch in music (the tonic), then whether one is in the key of C or in the key of Bb, one can hear and respectively distinguish the second or third pitch as “re” or “mi,” respectively and it makes it easy to understand, compare, analyze, appreciate and transpose music. The function of each pitch is always relative to the tonic. If you are in C major, the third pitch is E. If you are in Bb major, the third pitch is D. If you know the movable do, you will hear the E as third in the key of C, and D as the third in the key of Bb. The momentary monetary value of something is always pegged to the current market price of the average in its group, the 100% Average unit, the entity that is the entity in any group which entity is average in price and qualities, the standard, touchstone, norm entity in this invention, with which all other entities are compared.

With this invention, at any point in time, the correct monetary value of a thing can always be calculated based on what the probed thing is, has and does for the inquirer, and depending on how much the exact average thing would cost at that time, if it existed.

If I want a computer that does very few things but is very reliable and fast, it might be worth $2,000 to me, because it does what I need, even though it sells for $1,000. Another computer that does a lot of complicated tasks but is slow, unreliable and has a weak guarantee, might only be worth $1,000 to me, even though it costs $2,000. There is a limit to this, because if a computer sells for $5,000, and has a general value of $3000, even if I do not like it, given the opportunity, I might pay $2,000 for it, sell it, buy one that I like, and keep the change.

The value of every item in a given economy is affected by the price of every other item. If airline tickets go up by 5%, the baker who has to travel must raise his price for bread, that is why the Lincoln Navigator's price affects the value of a Jeep Cherokee. All other things being equal, if the price of one changes, the value of the other changes too.

The linchpin is the notional unit in any group which unit is average both in price and in quality in that group, its value flowing from what the members of a group are, have and do, nothing else. This provides the present system the freedom accurately to measure the value of any real entity by comparing it with the Average. The price of this deductive Average entity is simply the average price determined by the various prices the members of this group fetch at market then.

The value of a specific model Blaupunkt sound system is the same in any car, but its conclusive monetary value is specific to the observer. If the average sound system (100%) is worth $500, then if the Blaupunkt is ultimately demonstrated to be better by 40%, then, on the average, its value would be $700. If to one, the quality of the sound system in a car is important to a degree of 2% of his total pie, then if the average car sells for $23,800 for instance, in reality he pays $460 for average sound. (2% of $23,800, $23,800 being the price of the Average car in our deductive group, this vehicle being average on all its qualities, including its sound system).

We are not necessarily concerned with the cost of the Blaupunkt. The point of this invention is to tell the observer what something is worth, so one can compare things on their actual value, versus what these things sell for, as well as to learn what various entities' respective monetary values are, no matter their market prices. We already know the listed (or market) prices of goods and services, but we do not know which product or service is overpriced or undervalued. Do advertisements help? Does any advertisement ever tell you if a competing product or service is better AND less expensive?

For example, something that costs $100, might be worth $120 to a customer personally, because of what it is, has a does for her. A competing service or item could be worth $130 to her, when its actual price is $80. Without the present invention this kind of evaluation could never be done for two reasons: we had no independent, precise, “natural” yardstick to quantify qualities of entities, and no WIP pie (or bar or other chart) to enlighten one about one's own, unique value system.

As mentioned above, if people went solely by the price of things, they would never buy Consumer Reports type of shopping guides, because they would know that for $100 they simply get $100 worth of goods and services. The present invention accomplishes what a true buying guide should achieve: it independently provides the pecuniary value of something, both in terms of a suddenly ideally educated society or group, as well as relevant to the deductively perfectly knowledgeable exploring individual.

Let us continue the example with an individual who pays $460 for the average sound system, and the Blaupunkt being 40% better than average. If any car has the Blaupunkt, to this buyer, that car will be worth $184 more than a car that has just a average sound system, all other things being equal. (40% of $460 more, $23,800 being the price of the Average car in our deductive group).

In other words whether it is a Navigator or a Sportage, for this particular consumer, the Blaupunkt's presence means a $184 increase in value. However, to a different person, for whom the average sound system in a car is worth only 1% of an automobile's total value, or $230, ($23,800 being the price of the Average car in our deductive group), this “40% better” sound system means an increase of 1% of $230, or $92, no matter the car. (Everything consists of 100% of its attributes).

Let us suppose that except for the sound system, for individual “A”, based on his preferences, the SUV Sportage, with certain, chosen options, is worth $13,250, and the SUV Navigator, with unique selected extras, is worth $39,000. (These are not the prices, of course, but the respective monetary values of these two vehicles, to specific prospective buyer “A,” based on his preferences, compared to the average current market price for sport utility vehicles and based on what in fact each of these two SUVs respectively are, have and do, as opposed to what they sell for). Pretend that at this point, only the sound system evaluation remains.

If the new Navigator in question has a average sound system, for customer “A,” it stays in value at $39,000. If for some reason a dealer now installed a Blaupunkt into said new Sportage, this Sportage's value to buyer “A” will be $13,250 plus $184, or $13,434. ($23,800 being the price of the Average car in our deductive group). Of course Non-Subjective Valuing ultimately accounts for all or many of a probed entity's qualities.

For instance, if there are eight slices to the total pie chart, (or eight bars to the total bar chart, and etc.), each slice representing 12.5% of the total (100%) pie, and the price of the Average (100%) entity in the probed group is $80, then each 12.5 slice corresponds to $10 in value, or to put it another way, 12.5% equals a rating of average, or “5,” (on a scale of 0-10), and is worth $10 in the case of this entity, to a observer to whom all eight named characteristics of an entity in this group, are equally important. Let us not forget that whether we use 1-5, 5 being best, or any other representation of ratings, or any graphic representation of the deviation from the 100% average (could be 1, for instance), this invention depends on any accurate delegacy of quantified differences of qualities of test units as compared with the average unit. The invention does not depend on how such process is achieved or delineated, as long as the cognitive process adheres to the principle of what this invention teaches, which is this: once we know what the average unit is, has and does, and calculated what it would fetch at market: we have the NORM unit, with which existing units are to be compared, to unearth said existing units' respective values.

However, if a specific observer “B” records a rating of 6 for one of the eight attributes, say attribute “Z”, the pie slices for relative value-importance (Worth Importance Point, or WIP pie, or bar or other chart) change to represent “6” (for “Z”), and “5,” “5,” “5,” “5,” “5,” “5,” “5” (for all the other, remaining attributes), or 41=100%, or 6:0.41=16%, and all the 5s then change to show slices that equal 12% each. (All rounded numbers for illustration)

Now let's consider how a unique probed entity's value to this particular observer “B” changes. Suppose a specific test entity “TE” is better than average on its quality of “Z” by 10%. “Z” is important to this observer “B” to a degree of 16%. The average observer pays $10 for the quality of “Z.” “TE” is better than average on its attribute of “Z” by 10%. Therefore, Non-Subjective Valuing calculates the “TE's” monetary value as follows: 16% of $10 is $1.60. The total monetary value of “TE” to this observer “B,” is $81.60, all other things being equal. Since all other things are virtually never equal, Non-Subjective Valuing calculates the monetary value of each, or more than one, attribute of a test entity in context of the individual observer's WIP (value system).

Non-Subjective Valuing notes and inventories the preferences of each observer. This feature yields the preferences of the average observer. The system displays the known market price as well as the actual monetary value of each test entity in context of the average observer, called societal value. This way, the individual observer can compare his own taste with that of the average observer. This is useful, because whatever computer or car or house, is ultimately selected by the observer, the observer should know what the particular entity is worth to society, in case the observer ever wants to sell it, or if the observer cares about the true (general) value of something, not only what it is worth to the observer, specifically.

A series of scientific, statistical, central tendency sampling surveys may also be employed to the general population, or to a specific segment of it (older couples with no children, millionaires, poker players, psychologists, etc.), to discover basic starting numbers for calculating communal (or specific) worth. To discover how important the quality of top speed in a car is to women who make more than $100,000 a year, or who are under 30 years old, or who wear glasses, and so on, are all possible with the present invention.

Important uses of the present invention include for manufacturers to learn how to improve their products by discovering distinctly what people like about any product, not by asking consumers specific, arbitrarily selected questions, but by learning: what potential buyers themselves might say a product means to them, and precisely how valuable each specific quality of a product is to the public, or a group of potential buyers, or to one individual prospect, and exactly how much money which buyers are willing to pay for certain unique features.

Conjoint analysis and other similar methods that group together attributes cannot accomplish what Non-Subjective Valuing achieves. Analyzing responses to a questionnaire, once even two attributes were coupled, no one can conclusively know how important each characteristic might have been to respondents. For instance consider this typical question posed: Would you rather stay at hotel A, that has elegant rooms, is close to the convention center, at $200 a night, or would you prefer hotel B, 20 minutes away, that has average rooms, at $100 a night? No matter what the answer: we have no idea what it means, since (as they say in law) the question was compound! We do not know which question the respondent answered, the one about proximity or room quality: which traits were important to him and to what extent: remain unknown. Considering price as a component of value is by itself a separate and invariably fatally confusing error, in any event.

What the present invention does in the above case (supposing that businessmen are the observer group) is the following. First,—pretending for this example that the relevant hotel rooms have only two qualities that matter—Non-Subjective Valuing discovers the price for a deductive hotel room that is average in its qualities, including the decor, the proximity to the convention center, and etc. Then it asks the businessmen to rate all qualities that are important to them, such as proximity and style. Suppose this business groups' WIP average out 7 for room quality and 8 for proximity. It is calculated that the price for the assumed average room, is $150. The businessmen's pie is 7+8=15. It means that these business people, on the average, spend 47% of $150 ($70) for average room quality, and 53% of the $150 ($80), for average proximity. Now, we must measure how good the actual test hotels' respective rooms are rated compared to average, and how the proximity of each hotel compares to the common distance. This is where the 0-10, 10 being best, makes life so easy.

Say there are three considerable hotels: A, B and C, and prospective businessmen guests are interested in correlating/synthesizing only the above referenced two qualities: room décor (“style”) and distance to the convention center (“proximity”). Dependable surveys of like businessmen who had actually stayed at these very establishments, evidence that on the average, as to the category of “style,” A rates a 4, B deserves a 6, and C picks up an 8, on the 0-10 scale. The 100%, assumed hotel room in that case therefore rates a 6 on style (4+6+8=18:3=6), or the average (100%) décor in this instance is 6. Relevant to distance to the convention center, the three in play hotels in our example measure as follows: A=10 minutes, B=12 minutes, and C=17 minutes. Therefore, the imaginary Average establishment, in our example, would be 13 minutes from the Convention Center. (10+12+17=39:3=13, or 13 minutes=100% distance factor). As to prices, those hotels charge $60, $80, and $100 per night, respectively, their average price being $80. Now we adopt the Average (100%) hotel in that area: For $80 you'd get a room that rates 6 on style and is 13 minutes from the Convention Center.

Staying with the above preference numbers (47% for style and 53% for proximity): a specific, existent hotel “D” that happens to rate 6 on style, but which is located 14½ minutes from the Convention Center, is worth the same as average on style, or about $37.60, (47% of $80), but is worth about 10% less than average as to distance: 53% of $80=$42-$4.20=$37.80, meaning that a room for a night at this particular establishment is worth about $75.40, or so. Now one can compare Hotel “D's” true relative value with its actual price, whatever that might be, and by displaying in order the calculated worth of all relevant hotels, their values can be compared to each other, as well as their prices can be judged against their actual values, and the respective savings sorted in percentage, actual dollar values or some other comparable manner. It could turn out that one has a choice at staying at a hotel worth $200 for $205, or to select one that costs $150 which hotel is worth $180. It is then up to the individual to choose on such optimal, relevant information.

These numbers are not somebody's opinion in the ordinary sense. This is not Consumers Report editors or subscribers telling you what they think and neither is it an undecipherable popularity contest. These dollar figures mirror what you yourself would think if you knew and understood all the facts, and the results are expressed in precise pecuniary terms, to give you a chance to choose on optimal information: you now have a chance to identify/enter your own value system, and Non-Subjective Valuing gives you your very own judgment, as if you were suddenly ideally informed, in your very own terms yet! All relevant hotels are listed, their values calculated on this basis, the system sorting and displaying in some order all hotels by their values along with their prices, for the prospective guest to see the inventory, from most overpriced to the most undervalued, as well as seeing the hotel where the observer gets the most value for the dollars allowed by his budget. He can have the hotels sorted by any combination of attributes (for instance proximity and service only), or by a single attribute (for instance “quality of in house restaurants” alone, etc.)

On the comprehensive list he can scroll down to the hotels in the $150 range, enter his preferences, and learn the names of the hotels where for $150 he gets $170 or $120 values. The hotels will have different values for different individuals, different groups, and society as a whole, regardless of the hotels' prices. This gives the advantage to one, to whom good food is very important, but proximity is of no consequence, to choose a hotel with great restaurants 45 minutes from the business center, and so on. This buyer's money will go for what he wants to pay for. On the other hand, such unique survey/analysis allows an establishment, or manufacturer, to know precisely what they can charge for various advantages, to what buyers, and which aspect of a product or service to improve, and how cost-effective each such betterment will be, because the monetary value of each quality is specifically and organically identified. The results are not somebody's opinion, not a consensus of experts or amateurs, but reflect reality instead: “is” means “is,” in the Non-Subjective Valuing system.

To many, the fact that a hotel is well-known will be overwhelmingly important, which means that money spent on promotion by a hotel, instead of improved service, might be a wise move in some cases. For people who use Non-Subjective Valuing and who are interested in what a hotel is, has and does other than their fashionableness, money spent by a hotel on promotion will be wasted, and in contrast, money spent on improving service will be well spent.

This system uses the so called Gold Medalist Scale of increased/decreased value, but any scale may be used, once you learn the value judgment of the people, through surveys or other means, or that of a person, by the direct quiz or other methods, or if you can determine an applicable valuing scale by any method. The system works, no matter what basic numbers you use to distinguish worth relationships, the more they reflect people's real feelings, the better.

As long as you use the valuing scale consistently, and apply it equitably to determine relative value and order, within or outside a probed group of entities, you are okay. The Gold Medalist Scale takes into account the fact that the difference in value between the first and second place winners is much greater than the difference between who (or what) come in 6th and 7th.

The silver medallist is considered by many the first loser—that is why in sports and other contests (for instance at the Olympics), you often see the runners up cry in great desperation and disappointment, but not the individuals who place 8^(th) or 108^(th). The latter ones seem (and are relatively) much more content with their performance. The present invention accounts for this truth by using the following scale, called the Gold Medallist Syndrome Scale of Values:

Non-Subjective Valuing's current Gold Medallist Scale is: 10=400%; 9=200%; 8=156%; 7=126%; 6=105%; 5=100% (it does not have to be 5, as long as the number represents 100% (average) in the group); 4=95%; 3=79%; 2=64%; 1=50% and 0=25%. If the value difference is readily ascertainable by percentage divergence to the average, no rating numbers are used. The easiest and most exact way to tell the monetary value of something is to compare it with the average unit in its group, of which unit the deductive market price has already been calculated.

It is likely that even the worst relevant hotel room will not be less than sixteen times worse then the best, and in reality too few will pay more than four times the average, for the best hotel room, statistically to worry about. However, the actual scale is best determined by surveys, which surveys learn the maximum dollars society on the average, or a certain group or individual, is willing to pay for a hotel room at any given time, no matter how great the accommodations (10), and at the same time, the minimum hotel quality for which they will pay any money at all (0).

A pie or other chart is created for consumers, manufacturers, or any group or an individual. The relative importance of features to potential customers or others probed are accurately expressed by the sizes of the slices of such pie, or the sizes of the bars, this way learning precisely what people are willing to pay for cars or computers, that have (or that lack) specific qualities, thus discovering the correct monetary value or ranking for each attribute of an entity in terms of society, a particular targeted group or an individual. The process discovered by the present invention may be likened to learning the rules of a basket ball game. Only if we know the rules can we determine a winner and a runner-up. The rules for the best carry-on suitcase (or pizza, or beauty contest) must be known before we can declare the winner, and those rules can be had by the series of scientific surveys and the accurate interpretation of those polls, as described in the present invention.

For instance, suppose a car is measured for value of three qualities to a certain group of citizens, say ones who make $100,000 a year. They are asked to enter their value, on a scale of 0-10, 10 being most important, concerning safety: “How important is it to you how many people die in a vehicle each year?” Say the average number turns out to be 9. Then they are enquired: “On the same basis, how important is it to you how many people get seriously injured annually in a car?” Say the final number is 8. Then they are requested: “On that same basis, how important is it to you how government tests rate a car's crash-worthiness?” Say the end number is 5. Now we have 9, 8 and 5 for these segments of safety concerning this group of respondents, which can be a representative sample of the United States in 2007, giving us societal value (True Value) in that case. The calculation goes like this: 9+8+5=22 . . . 9:0.22=41%; 8:0.22=36% and 5:0.22=23%. (Throughout these Specifications, since the initial and subsequent Patent Applications, numbers are used for illustration only and are always approximate and/or rounded out.) Thus, a manufacturer also finds out how much money people are willing to pay for various aspects of safety in a car, and precisely what constitutes safety for the buyers. Non-Subjective Valuing's pre-survey polls ask “What do you consider safety factors in a car?” letting the respondents tell their definitions for unprejudiced, organic results.

This is useful in planning, because if minor injuries are relatively unimportant to a targeted group or individual, but fatalities are very significant, by knowing the amount of money consumers are willing to pay for various aspects of safety, and how much it would cost for the manufacturer to improve those specific facets, the car maker will be able to calculate exactly what kind of profits certain investments in specific improvements may bring.

Using the same method for the bigger picture: “How important is safety to you?” Average Response 9. “How important is Performance to you?” Normal Reply 8. “How important is style to you?” Common Answer 9. (As many attributes as the survey taker think is important to measure.) This “pie” is 9+8+9=26. 26=100%.

Now in various segments of the community, style will count for more than safety, and so on. This means that a certain manufacturer might address the questionnaire only to a targeted group or individual. For instance, if a car manufacturer finds out that daylight running lights are considered very useful by buyers and that potential purchasers are willing to pay a certain amount for these lamps, the manufacturer can decide if it pays for it to make and include this option on its vehicles.

If buyers are willing to pay $200 for these lights and the lamps can be made for $25, it pays to add them to the product. Conversely, if it is learned that people do not consider daytime running lights important and they do not want to pay more than $10 for them, the manufacturer can decide to drop this property from its standard product. This invention, as an option, includes the educating of the “voters,” in that an objective description of what daytime running lights do for the observer, is provided by the Non-Subjective Valuing system, so that the inquirer can more intelligently decide how important such attribute might be for said inquirer, on a scale of 0-10, 10 being most important, based on what a given characteristic in fact is, does and has generally, and for the inquirer particularly.

This process cannot be done accurately without the specific percentage-subdivision system set forth in this invention, or a system by any other name that achieves what the present invention's “100%-pie” system accomplishes. A car maker will want to learn, to what extent individual automobile features are important to buyers, exactly how much people are willing to pay for specific unique features, and consequently, how much more money the maker should invest in improving the product in a particular fashion, for how much sales advantage over the competition. The best way to achieve this, is first to learn what the buyers value, without asking them to comment on a specific, arbitrarily pre-selected inventory of attributes. The second round learns the relative importance of each attribute, by learning the accurate percentages of importance to each, and finally express such segmentation in monetary terms. Until now, there was guess work in this area, because there was no anchor, no accurate yardstick to reflect reality.

The Department of Education might want to find out from the citizenry: 1. What are the important things in life for the people; 2. How relatively important each of these things are to them, and 3. For the people, what might be the most likely or preferred methods to lead to their attainment.

Instead of “experts” designing SAT tests and deciding the criteria for a good student, a good teacher, a good college or a successful person and so on: by allowing society to develop its WIP instead, for the first time ever, an unprejudiced and fair way of evaluating education and other important government issues, could be had. For example, the significance of test scores might become much less important, since the attribute of “test-taking-talent” might not count to be the top priority generally, or to a certain segment of society, or to an individual.

First, the DOE would have to learn from the people, what all the characteristics (or at least the determining ones) of a successful individual are to the people. The second survey would have to determine how relatively important each such discovered attribute is to the people. Today, the experts might make money, designing the tests, but they are in the dark as to what really counts or should count. They do not know and cannot know. Not organic system of learning exists.

Next is unearthing the “price” the people think should be paid for each said characteristic. How important happiness is versus making money, how important is being useful to society versus wasting time watching television, is watching television always a waste of time, and so on. The Non-Subjective Valuing method discovers societal value. What and who do we want to be? Once people are informed about what each aspect of an entity means, by knowing how much money, or energy, or effort, (“price”) etc., they are willing to invest in each: societal value emerges. Ultimately, a balanced, happy personality, might be more important than riches. Some will opt not to attempt to become professional tennis players, once they know the precise benefits of and chances for success and the “price” to be paid. Some will opt to try. At least no school board or individual will be in the dark as they are today.

Let's again illustrate how the percentage-allocating system works for individuals, using computers as an example. Pretend for this illustration that a computer has only two qualities that matter: speed and reliability, and that these are the verified facts about them: RELIABILITY COMPUTER Price Speed RATING IBM $1,750 500 9 Packard Bell $850 350 7 NAC $1,300 350 8 Sony $1,500 450 6 HP $1,500 450 8 Compaq $1,500 450 7

-   -   In this group the average price is $1400=100%     -   The average speed is 425=100%.     -   The average rating is 7.5. (Serving as “5” (100%)—on 0-10 rating         system—for this example)

So our Average computer in this group, if it existed, would sell for $1400, would have a Speed of 425 and a Reliability rating of 7.5. (The average rating does not have to be a 5 on the scale of 0-10, 10 being best, as long as a number accurately expresses the 100% or Average point, such as 7.5 expresses it in the above example.)

Here is the relevant comparison sheet, expressing deviations to the average in percentages: COMPUTER Price Speed Reliability Rating IBM $1,750 = 125% 500 = 118% 9 = 120% Packard Bell  $850 = 61% 350 = 82%  7 = 93%  NAC $1,300 = 93%  350 = 82%  8 = 107% Sony $1,500 = 107% 450 = 106% 6 = 80%  Hewlett Packard $1;500 = 107% 450 = 106% 8 = 107% Compaq $1,500 = 106% 450 = 106% 7 = 93% 

Now, the “pie” is divided into two slices to start with, each having a starting value of 50%. This is not significant, except to an individual to whom speed and reliability happen to be important to the same degree, but we always start this way to measure the relative importance of characteristics to each observer. In case of eight characteristics, the pie slices (or bar chart bars) begin at 12.5% each, and so on.

Now let's take three fictitious individuals who go computer shopping, each having about $1,500 to spend: Luis, Tommy and Paul. From the pie or bar charts they had created for themselves with the help of Non-Subjective Valuing, we know that to Luis, Reliability is important to 47%, speed to 53%; for Tommy it is 50-50; and since Paul cares nothing about speed, having all the time in the world, and is only concerned about reliability: for him it is 0% and 100%.

Here is a study of the resulting value comparisons: Case #1 The 100% NORM (average) computer in this group costs $1,400, its Speed being 425 with a Reliability rating of 7.5. Relative importance for Luis: Speed 53% - Reliability 47%. Reliability $ Saved/ Computer Price Speed Rating Calculations $ Worth Lost % Gained/Lo

IBM $1,750 = 125% 500 = 118% 9 = 120% 1400 + 18% (742) + 20% (658) = 1400 + 134 + 132 = $1,666 [$84]  [6%] Packard Bell   $850 = 61% 350 = 82% 7 = 93% 1400 − 18% (742) − 7% (658) = 1400 − 134 − 46 = $1,200  $370  26.1% NEC $1,300 = 93% 350 = 82% 8 = 107% 1400 − 18% (742) + 7% (658) = 1400 − 134 + 46 = $1,312  $12   1% Sony $1,500 = 107% 450 = 106% 6 = 80% 1400 + 6% (742) − 20% (658) = 1400 + 45 − 132 = $1,313 [$187] [13.2%] Hewlett $1,500 = 107% 450 = 106% 8 = 107% 1400 + 6% (742) + 7% (658) = 1400 + 45 + 46 = $1,491 [$9]  [0.5%] Packard Compaq $1,500 = 107% 450 = 106% 7 = 93% 1400 + 6% (742) − 7% (658) = 1400 + 45 − 46 = $1,399 [$94]  [7.1%]

CASE #2 The 100% NORM (average) computer in this group costs $1,400, its Speed being 425 with a Reliability rating of 7.5. Relative importance for Tommy: Speed 50% - Reliability 50%. Reliability $ Saved/ Computer Price Speed Rating Calculations $ Worth Lost % Gained/Lo

IBM $1,750 = 125% 500 = 118% 9 = 120% 1400 + 18% (700) + 20% (700) = 1400 + 126 + 140 = $1,666 [$84]  [6%] Packard Bell   $850 = 61% 350 = 82% 7 = 93 1400 − 18% (700) − 7% (700) = 1400 − 126 − 49 = $1,225  $375  27% NEC $1,300 = 93% 350 = 82% 8 = 107% 1400 − 18% (700) + 7% (700) = 1400 − 126 + 49 = $1,323  $23   2% Sony $1,500 = 107% 450 = 106% 6 = 80% 1400 + 6% (700) − 20% (700) = 1400 + 42 − 98 = $1,302 [$198] [14%] Hewlett $1,500 = 107% 450 = 106% 8 = 107% 1400 + 6% (700) + 7% (700) = 1400 + 42 + 49 = $1,491 [$9]  [0.5%] Packard Compaq $1,500 = 107% 450 = 106% 7 = 93% 1400 + 6% (700) − 7% (700) = 1400 + 42 − 49 = $1,393 [$107]  [7.5%]

CASE #3 The 100% NORM (average) computer in this group costs $1,400, its Speed being 425 with a Reliability rating of 7.5. Relative importance for Paul; Speed 0% - Reliability 100%. Reliability Computer Price Speed Rating Calculations $ Worth $ Saved/Lost % Gained/Lo

IBM $1,750 = 125% 500 = 118% 9 = 120% 1400 + 18% (0) + 20% (1400) = 1400 + 280 = $1,680 [$70]  [5%] Packard Bell   $850 = 61% 350 = 82% 7 = 93% 1400 − 18% (0) − 7% (1400) = 1400 − 98 = $1,302  $452  32% NEC $1,300 = 93% 350 = 82% 8 = 107% 1400 − 18% (0) + 7% (1400) = 1400 + 98 = $1,498  $198  14% Sony $1,500 = 107% 450 = 106% 6 = 80% 1400 + 6% (0) − 20% (1400) = 1400 − 280 = $1,120 [$380] [27%] Hewlett Packard $1,500 = 107% 450 = 106% 8 = 107% 1400 + 6% (0) + 7% (1400) = 1400 + 98 = $1,498 [$2]   0% Compaq $1,500 = 107% 450 = 106% 7 = 93% 1400 + 6% (0) − 7% (1400) = 1400 − 98 = $1,302 [$198] [14%]

The procedure is as follows: Non-Subjective Valuing discovers qualities of an entity, and the relative importance of each said characteristic of said entity. Then the deductive monetary value of the average, 100%-entity, is calculated, to which average entity, all existent entities are compared, on a percentage or other reasonable basis, the resulting differences then serving to calculate a given test entity's monetary value.

If the Average entity in any group is calculated to cost $100 in toto, then if a test entity turns out to be generally 5% better, its value is considered to be $105. The “100% pie” for society is determined by noting and averaging all observers' preferences and so Non-Subjective Valuing always has the current “100% pie” for the average observer. Surveys can be used to determine the societal 100%-pie. An individual's 100%-pie is determined by noting the preferences of the unique observer. A unique observer may add his own qualities, and/or use the qualities provided for rating by Non-Subjective Valuing, in the form of a quiz, to judge the available qualities' relative importance to any observer.

The numbers change with time and the Non-Subjective Valuing system is continually updated to reflect the ever current societal and/or group and/or individual value systems as well as the average price of a corresponding average entity. The average price of a loaf of bread, or a New York to Los Angeles plane ticket, or a Sports Utility Vehicle, continually change, and these changes have an influence on each other. Inflation or deflation affects all values and prices, in a given economy. This Non-Subjective Valuing system always starts out with considering the current real world price of a precisely average loaf of bread, the cost of the average NY to LA plane ticket, or the standardized SUV's market price. If the Average entity cost $100, then an existing test entity scoring 110 points (110%), would be worth $110. This has nothing to do with the entity's real-life price. An entity could sell for $200, but its value could be $100, or $300, or $1,000, or $1, or $200, of course. Or it could be worthless to a specific observer.

Here is an oversimplified example for how the Average is calculated, using a single component: automobile “brake quality.” If the braking distance 60 mph to 0 of car A, is 140 feet, and car B can stop 60 mph-0 in 130 feet, then their average stopping length is 120 feet. If car A sells for $30,000 and car B sells for $20,000, then their average price is $25,000. Therefore, the deductive Average car has a price of $25,000 and it can stop in 120 feet. Now, using unsophisticated math here, if a test car X is measured for how soon it can stop 60 mph to 0, and the result is 122 feet, then since being able to stop sooner, is better, then the fact is that the test car is better than average on this one quality, by 10%. If “brake quality” is important to society to 12%, then the normal individual pays 12% of $25,000 for average “brake quality,” which amounts to $3,000. It follows, that in our example, test car X is worth 10% of $3,000 more than the average car, all other things being equal, which they never are. Or, to put it another way, if test car X were identical to the average vehicle, other than the fact that its brakes are 10% better, then its value would be $25,300!

The present invention teaches that in order to calculate the dollar value of something, we must know how relatively important various of its qualities are, and what would be the market price of the car whose qualities were average. For instance, to the average person, how fast a car can stop, could be important to a degree of 1%. To a specific explorer (cab company, teenager, old lady) it could be 2%.

Here is a different example for how to figure the monetary value of the fact that test car X can stop 10% faster than the average car: If for the average person this quality is important only to 1% of all the qualities of a car, since test car X's breaks are 10% better, and since 1% of $25,000 is $250, 10% of $250 ($25) is added to the value of car X, meaning, the societal value of car X (which is otherwise identical to the average car) is $25,025. Now, to a specific individual entity (Blue Star Taxi Cab Co., or Jean Smith, an individual explorer), for whom the importance of stopping distance is at a level of 2%, we add 2% of 10%, which is $50, making car X worth to this unique entity $25,050, all other things being equal.

These are the values based on ideal information both as to the qualities of an object and as to the observer's preferences, both entirely new concepts when coupled with the idea that all things consist of 100% of their discoverable or selected qualities as presented in this invention.

Until this innovation of the Average and the percentage-preference-charts of observers, people choose in the dark: they had no yardstick with which to compare the value of a quality with the value of another, and they had no way to know how important each quality of an entity is to them, personally, or to society, as a whole. This invention put an end to at least two basic fallacies of capitalism: 1. That you get what you pay for, and 2 that something is worth what somebody will pay for it.

The way this method calculates pie slices, or bar sizes, is this: Say there is an entity that has three characteristics we want to test, and it is determined that those three qualities are important to the collective as follows: Using the 0-10, 10 being most important rating system for this example:

-   -   Quality X=9     -   Feature Y=4     -   Characteristic Z=8     -   Translated into proportions of the whole:     -   9+4+8=21     -   9:0.21=43%     -   4:0.21=19%     -   8:0.21=38%

So in this illustration, to the average individual (the starting point ultimately to representing societal value), X is significant to 43%, Y has an importance of 19%, and Z is meaningful to 38%. Say that our research reveals that the exact average entity in the group we are valuing, would cost $1,000. (This is the deductive entity that would rate 100% on all its considered qualities, or in this case, on attributes X, Y and Z.)

This is how the present invention determines a test entity's dollar worth: Pretend that our research indicates that the verified qualities of test entity “e” are as follows: On attribute X, “e” is better than average by 4%, on characteristic Y, it is worse than average by 3%, and on trait Z, “e” falls below average by 2%. Now we know that in our present example, in our society, quality X, is worth 43%, or the average individual spends $420 for average quality X, (the Average entity having a deductive price of $1,000); $190 goes for attribute Y; and $380 is paid for feature Z.

Attributes can be ignored, left undiscovered, or uncounted, and placed in an “unknown” pie slice, for instance it can be said that entity “e” is important on X, Y and Z to specific percentages, and as to its other qualities (not considered) it is important to 25%. (or whatever is uncounted or undiscovered). Also, it can be decided that only certain characteristics really matter. The pie and discovery are then limited, but the invention still works. For instance, suppose it is determined that in the tested group, the qualities of X, Y and Z matter to a total of 75%, then we can state that 25% of the pie is left blank, or its value is unknown, and express the monetary value of the probed entity, noting that we are only accounting for 75% of its total value.

Or it can be decided that the only thing that matters in a car is the quality of engine condition, (or in case of HMOs, the quality of “success rate”), and use the system scientifically to figure out the value of that one quality, which can be represented as a certain slice of the pie, such as “ENGINE CONDITION is important to 85%,” and all other attributes are important to 15%, and get the dollar value for society, a segment of the population, an appraiser company, or an individual observer, by comparing cars on this basis. But to continue the formula, test entity “e” is better than average on quality X by 4%, so we add 4% of $430, or $17 to the value of “e”; on Y, “e” falls short by 3% of $190, or we deduct $6 from “e's” total dollar worth; and finally because on attribute Z, “e” is worse than average by $7 (rounded numbers for this illustration), we deduct this amount from the total actual value of “e”. So, whatever “e's” selling price, its true relative value is $4 more than the price of the Average, or “e's” societal worth is $1,004.

In contrast, if an individual inquirer were to pick and rate the relative importance levels as

-   -   Quality X=9     -   Feature Y=5     -   Characteristic Z=5, translated into pie slices 9+5+5=19, using         rough figures for illustration, it would mean:     -   9:0.19=48%     -   5:0.19=26%     -   5:019=26%.

So to this particular individual, X is significant to 48%, Y has an importance of 26%, and Z is meaningful to 26%.

Since our research revealed that the average entity in the group we are valuing, would cost $1,000, (the deductive entity that rates 100% on all its tested qualities, or in this model case, on attributes X, Y and Z), this is how the present invention determines the same test “e” entity's dollar worth, to this particular inquirer: As we know, in our present example, our research discovered that the verified qualities of test entity “e” are: On attribute X, it is better than average by 4%, on characteristic Y, it is worse than average by 3%, and on trait Z, it falls below average by 2%.

Now we know that to this individual, quality X is worth 48%, or this explorer spends $480 for average quality X, (the average entity here having a deductive price of $1,000); $260 going for attribute Y; and in this case, $260 is paid for feature Z. Test entity “e” is better than average on quality X by 4%, so we add 4% of $480, or $19, to the value of “e”; on Y, “e” falls short by 3% of $260, or we deduct $8 from “e's” dollar worth; and finally, for this inquirer, because on attribute Z, “e” is worse than average by 2% of $260, or $5 more is deducted from the total value of “e.” So, whatever “e's” selling price, its value to this inquirer is $4 more than the price of the Average, or $994.

In order to insure informed choices, as an option, this system can provide descriptions of hard-to-understand technical terms, or enlighten an inquirer about what any specific attribute of an entity is, does and has, specifically for this inquirer, or for society, in general. For example, whether or not the concept or ramifications of DAYLIGHT RUNNING LIGHTS in an automobile, is or is not fully comprehended by an inquirer, this system can explain everything, or the most important things about this quality or attribute, in terms of the average individual, so that the importance of a specific quality can be judged by the inquirer, based on what it in fact is, has and does for the observer, before pronouncing it important to the degree of 2 or 7, or whatever.

Example: Non-Subjective Valuing can provide explanations for specific attributes, such as this one:

-   -   DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS ARE A TYPE OF HEADLIGHTS ON A CAR THAT         AUTOMATICALLY TURN ON WHEN YOU START YOUR ENGINE, MAKING YOUR         CAR SAFER, BECAUSE WITH THESE LAMPS ON, OTHER DRIVERS CAN MORE         EASILY NOTICE YOUR AUTOMOBILE, BOTH ON CITY STREETS AND IN         FREEWAY TRAFFIC.

This invention can unearth how the observers or observer define a specific quality. For instance, by asking survey questions about automobile safety, the system learns what it is that society in general, or a single observer in particular, consider a safe car, in other words, just what are the components of safety, for the observer or observers? Experts incorrectly assume that they know what safety means to me. It is not always true.

Or, in reference to a computer, polls can tell us: which components of the quality of reliability are relatively more or less important (and by what percentage): crash, reboot, repair frequencies, expert opinion, printer, monitor, modem, Internet, hardware, software relationships, sturdiness of case, etc. Thereby customizing choice possibilities even more to adhere to the observer's desires and to help the manufacturer design future product.

In order to be more precise in valuing, this invention can also learn from the observers, to what extent said observers perceive that a certain probed group or entity is overpriced or undervalued. For instance, if the average yearly fee for HMOs turns out to be $12,000, the present system can learn, if society currently holds that such cost, at the present time, is too high, or too low, and by what percentage. Then the dollar figure matching the yardstick HMO, can be adjusted accordingly, since it is the perceiver who determines what something is worth to such observer. The same method may be used for individuals. This way, there is yet another dimension to Non-Subjective Valuing, as follows. In addition to answering the question: “What would be the value of a specific entity to an observer, if such observer knew and understood everything that observer wanted to know and understand about the probed entity?” another question may be answered, which is: “What ought to be the value of a specific entity if the observer knew and understood everything the observer wanted to now and understand about the probed entity?”

People have been interested to learn the actual monetary values of things other than their prices. At the present time, there are companies who supposedly seek out merchants and service providers where a consumer can buy specific products or services, for the least amount of money. Even when this process is done honestly, and the providers of products and services do not pay a fee to the company which recommends them to the public (which prejudices the entire process), the entire idea is based upon the fallacy that the listed prices of products and services always represent their actual value. The truth is that a company can find a merchant for you, who will sell you a specific television set for $1,000, which has a list price of $1.300. However, you remain in the dark as to the pecuniary value of that television set. Non-Subjective Valuing can tell you if it is worth $1,300, $1,000, or $800, depending on what it is, has and does, in your terms and/or in society's terms. For instance, this might be a set which breaks down often and has a bad manufacturer's guarantee. Or it could have been tested to outlast comparably priced sets. Depending on how important various aspects of this product are to you, Non-Subjective Valuing can give you its actual dollar value. Now, if you find that to you, a specific television set is worth $1,500, and its list price is $1,350, then if you locate a vendor to sell it to you for $1,200, you actually save $300, not $150! On the other hand, if there is a unique television set, which unit, due to your preferences and what it is, has and does, is assessed by Non-Subjective Valuing to be worth $900 to you, and it lists for $1,500, and you can locate a merchant who will sell it to you for $1,100: you still in fact lose $200! You get what you pay for, not. Sellers' aim is to make as much profit as they can, and will spend millions on advertising products and services, in order to influence you to buy them. Have you ever seen an ad which tells you if the competition is better and less expensive? Only Non-Subjective Valuing can do that, and not in a tendentious manner either, but in your very own terms. Market prices are determined by buyer and seller, but it is only theory. The free market system has long been corrupted by big companies. Sellers are more knowledgeable about products and services than buyers are. This is called asymmetric information. If enough money is spent on promoting a product, the public usually accepts it. Non-nutritious fast foods, harmful cigarettes and alcohol, unsafe cars, overpriced products and services: the list of selling the consumer short is endless. Non-Subjective Valuing lets the consumer choose on optimal, true, assimilable, enlightened information. It will also lead to manufacturers and service providers improving their products and services, not their promotion. An educated buyer demands real value for his money and will choose the best product, not the most promoted product. The entire free-market system will be greatly improved by Non-Subjective Valuing, including the choosing of candidates for political office, approving government programs and so on.

The present invention facilitates the learning of the actual societal or individual monetary importance of something other than its market price. This assists both buyer and seller, since to date, only market prices were known. Because most people know very little about most things, market prices generally reflect what people pay for things, about which they know very little. By definition, it follows that prices could not usually reflect values.

One attempt to solve this challenge has been Consumers Report type “independent” assessments that attempt to unearth the actual qualities of things, for monetary value comparison or ranking. People purchase such guides because they do not believe that in a free market, for $100, they always get $100 worth of goods or services. People are correct, of course. For $100, sometimes you get something which is worth $75, and sometimes $125. However, pre-Non-Subjective Valuing pricing guides provide only unquantified and prejudiced opinions.

If you ask editors and reviewers of existing buying guides, how much money their pronounced assessment of “15% better than average” means, for lack of a relevant yardstick, they will not and cannot know. If you ask them how much money their judgment of “15% better than average” means to an individual inquirer, if possible, they will know the answer even less. Until the present invention, no measuring yardstick has existed that could translate “15% better than average,” into monetary value, either to society, or to the individual.

The present invention holds that the true monetary importance of any entity can be discovered, if the inquirer knows what it wants in a product or service and if said inquirer is optimally informed about the product or service, in the inquirer's own terms. Current shopping guides or academic decision science formulas failed to solve this challenge. Subjectivity is overcome only by Non-Subjective Valuing where the worth judgment of the optimally informed average person is discovered. That represents True (or societal) Value, or the Unopinion.

First, the inquirer must know his own preferences. The present invention helps the explorer find out said preferences by teaching how the relevant Worth Importance Preference chart can be created. By considering the qualities and characteristics of an entity to be examined and measured for monetary value or ranking, its qualities must be rated on an equitable scale (for instance, 0-10, 10 being most important), by the inquirer, be the inquirer a buying guide, a vendor, a provider, an individual, a group, or the entire community.

Since all things consist of 100% of their considered or considerable attributes, the ratings yield the appropriate, applicable percentage allocations as set forth within the Specifications, supra, using pie slices graphically to demonstrate such proportional parceling. Secondly, the verified qualities of the entities to be measured must be known. Thirdly, there must be a method of comparison, since value does not exist in a vacuum. The lynchpin here is the calculated current correct market price of the unit that is average in all its considered or considerable qualities. All test units are compared to the Average unit, in terms of the proportioned chart of the individual, group, buying guide, shopping manual, or the entire society. This last one yields the contemporary societal value of the probed entity: True Value.

Two questions are answered by the present invention: 1. What would be the monetary importance of a particular entity to a perfectly informed society, and 2. What would the inquirer say, a specific entity is worth, if the inquirer suddenly knew everything said inquirer wanted to know about the subject? Thus the scientific differentiation between price and value is achieved, and we can now know both the price and the value of everything.

The invention applies to all types of valuations known to one ordinarily skilled in the art, such as, but not limited to, noting the actual relative values of an entity and/or its various qualities obtained by surveys, polls, searching the Internet, markets or other means. As another example, a collection of a consensus of weighing factors given by experts and/or laymen may be used in rating the relative importance of entities' or their attributes' subjective qualities. The invention further applies to all types of sorting methods for outputting the results of subjective and non-subjective valuing, in relative worth or ranking terms. For example, an explorer or provider may specify how relatively important certain qualities of entities are to such explorer or provider, and these qualities are weighted, with a sorted result of the entities based upon these one or more weight relationships provided for the observer. The invention applies to all types of combinations and/or rearrangements of the methods and systems described above. For example, it is within the scope of the present invention to have a observer input an actual, bona fide offer or price for an entity, next to information regarding that entity, and having the system re-compute relative values of competing entities based upon this fresh information. Furthermore, the system of the present invention may output to a layperson an interpretation and “help-desk” type information, not only giving a observer useful instructions, but compute, in the explorer's or provider's own terms, based on the explorer's entered or provider's noted respective preferences and value-systems, the specific worth of a quality of an entity which entity may be unmeasurable by the observer, due to incomprehensibility of technical language or other obstacle, making Non-Subjective Valuing's “sort-by-quality” feature more accurate.

It is further within the scope of the present invention to compare various calculated values of entities to predetermined values, to determine a more advantageous deal, or a “best” choice for a collective or an individual observer.

While various embodiments of the invention have been described, it will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art of valuing, that many more embodiments and implementations are possible within the scope of this invention, based on comparing individual real entities to the assumed average entity. Accordingly, this invention is not to be restricted except in light of the attached claims, specifications, drawings and their equivalents.

According to yet another aspect of the present invention, a method and procedure for providing the true market value of an entity is disclosed, comprising the following steps; determining qualities of an entity, at least one such quality specified, and the relative importance of each said quality of said entity; by market research, calculating the deductive market price of a real or fictitious entity which entity is average in its qualities, comparing the actual qualities a test entity with that or those of said average entity, to measure the difference between said test entity and said average entity; determining the true market value of said test entity by the weighted relationship between said test entity's selected quality or qualities and that or those of said average entity, and displaying for the observer the true market value of said test entity, by comparing it to the average entity. The aim of the market research is to determine for how much the average entity in the group would or should sell for. That average (assumed or real) entity becomes the yardstick with which all existent entities are compared. For instance, let us say that in 2010, a Specific 2005 Mercedes Model which is average in its selected one or more qualities, is learnt to fetch $10,000 in the market place. By comparing with this average model's quantified or unquantified qualities, any specific test model's parallel-quantified or unquantified qualities, it is learnt, by what degree the test car is better or worse than the average car, and that difference may be expressed by a pecuniary figure. If a test car in toto turns out to be 10% better than the average car, then if the average car would sell for $10,000 in the marketplace, then the test car which is 10% better, would have a true market value of $11,000.

5. A Condensed Recapitulating Narrative of the Invention

1. Through carefully designed questionnaires to the demographically correct cross section of our society, we learn all the qualities for which a target subject is presently recognized by the community. (Could be attributes of dentists, toothpastes, department stores, educational systems, online vendors, cities, senators, policies, economists, movies, movie reviewers, methods of evaluation . . . not even the sky is the limit). For this example, we will use Sport Utility Vehicles.

There are about 300 things we, the people, consider about them.

2. Through a second, similarly scientifically made up inquiry, to the demographically accurate cross section of our community, we learn how relatively important each property of the object is to us. For brevity, let's use only 3 attributes of SUVs for this example, not 300 or 3000, say: RELIABILITY, ECONOMY and SAFETY.

By allowing the respondents to rate each such attribute for importance, 0-10, 10 being most important, we shall have an average count of importance for each attribute. Since all things consist of 100% of their currently discoverable qualities, and pretending for this example that SUVs have only 3 qualities, here is how the math goes.

3. Suppose we get the following averages from the populace:

-   -   RELIABILITY 9,     -   ECONOMY 7, and     -   SAFETY 8.

Non-Subjective Valuing translates such relative importance ratings into slices of pies, columns of bars, or other representation of percentages, as follows in this particular example: 9+7+8=24, or

-   -   RELIABILITY 9:0.24=38%;     -   ECONOMY 7:0.24=29%;     -   SAFETY 8:0.24=33%. (Whatever number of characteristics we         measure, make up 100% of what an SUV “is”).

In this deductive example, to our current society, these SUV features are found to be important to the following degrees: RELIABILITY=38%; ECONOMY=29% and SAFETY=33%.

4. Non-Subjective Valuing scientific research measures the assumed exact average SUV's parallel characteristics.

By evaluating the level of RELIABILITY, ECONOMY and SAFETY of all SUVs, and discovering the average RELIABILITY, ECONOMY and SAFETY for such vehicles, the method assigns the identified averages to a Yardstick or NORM, or “100%,” SUV, which notional vehicle becomes the standard for Non-Subjective Valuing and with which putative Average vehicle, all existing vehicles are compared, on their respective quantified qualities.

This Average vehicle is mean, median, modal, centrical, or “NORMal,” on all its considerable characteristics, and most important, it is calculated: for exactly how much money it would sell in the market place.

5. Continuing to greatly simplify the explanation of the science, let us suppose that we learnt that the

-   -   100% (or average) RELIABILITY consists of an SUV breaking down         10 times during the first 5 years of its life;     -   its gas consumption (ECONOMY) turns out to be 20 mpg; and     -   national accident reports show that 120 individuals die each         year in the average Sport Utility Vehicle.

We also know from price averaging that our society is currently willing to pay $22,000 for the assumed, exact average SUV.

6. This means that the typical American pays out

-   -   38% of $22,000, for average reliability;     -   29% of $22,000, for normal economy; and     -   33% of $22,000, for regular safety.

Now we have our YARDSTICK SUV, based on nothing but the undiluted facts. Communally speaking then, we pay

-   -   $8,360 for normal reliability;     -   $6,380 for average economy; and     -   $7,260, for normalized safety . . . these dollar amounts         corresponding to the parallel percentages representing the         societal importance levels of the three in-play qualities.

7. Once we measure a Test SUV, (that is, a real one), and compare its characteristics with those of the average SUV, we get a perfectly valid dollar worth number, mirroring the true pecuniary VALUE of the Test vehicle, regardless of its price!

8. Using primitive math, it goes like this.

Say that the Test SUV sells for $25,000 and measures up as follows: It is confirmed that generally,

-   -   it breaks down 8 times during its first five years of its life,         making it about 25% more reliable than average, or we must add         25% of $8,360 to its value, concerning that one quality (or plus         $2,090, for its reliability advantage);     -   it will only travel 15 mpg, or less (worse by) 25% of $6,380 (or         minus $1,595 for this Test vehicle's economical disadvantage);         and finally, in our example, we learn that     -   in the Test SUV, 60 individuals die each year, making it 50%         safer than average, or worth 50% more than $7,260, which is the         amount of money we pay for normal safety, adding 50% of $7,260         (or plus $3,630), to the Test vehicle's value.

9. When we calculate

-   -   plus $2,090,     -   minus $1,595 and     -   plus $3,630, it turns out that our particular Test vehicle is         worth $4,125 more than the average SUV, or $22,000 plus $4,125,         equaling $26,125.

What this vehicle sells for ($25,000), can now be compared with what it's worth ($26,125), or we learn that our Test SUV is in fact underpriced by $1,125, or 4.5%!

IN OTHER WORDS, HAVING EMPLOYED NON-SUBJECTIVE VALUING, THE FOLLOWING QUESTION IS ANSWERED:

IF WE SUDDENLY KNEW AND UNDERSTOOD EVERYTHING WE WANTED TO RECOGNIZE AND INTERPRET ABOUT A REALM, HOW WOULD WE THEN RATE/RANK THE VARIOUS ENTITIES—OBJECTS—INDIVIDUALS—GOODS—SERVICES—IDEAS—POLICIES—PLACES—METHODS, ETC., IN THAT FIELD?

THAT IS, BEING PERFECTLY INFORMED, INEVITABLY YIELDS TRUE VALUE.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIGS. 1A and 1B are flowcharts of a method according to the present invention;

FIG. 2 is a flowchart of a method according to the present invention;

FIG. 3 is a flowchart of a method according to the present invention;

FIG. 4 is a flowchart of a method according to the present invention;

FIG. 5 is a flowchart of a method according to the present invention;

FIG. 6 is a flowchart of a method according to the present invention;

FIG. 7 is a flowchart of a method according to the present invention;

FIG. 8 is a flowchart of a method according to the present invention;

FIG. 9 is a flowchart of a method according to the present invention;

FIG. 10 is a flowchart of a method according to the present invention;

FIG. 11 is a flowchart of a method according to the present invention;

FIG. 12 is a flowchart of a method according to the present invention;

FIG. 13 is a flowchart of a method according to the present invention;

FIG. 14 is a flowchart of a method according to the present invention; and

FIG. 15 is a flowchart of a method according to the present invention.

CHRONICLING THE DRAWINGS/FLOW CHARTS

FIG. 1/A

A method and procedure for providing the true relative value of an entity is shown in FIG. 1/A. As shown, the method comprises the step 102 of determining qualities of an entity and the relative importance of each quality of the entity to a observer. By way of example, the entity may be a car, the qualities may be engine condition, reliability and location, the relative importance may be a 6 for engine condition, a 9 for reliability and a 2 for location. The next step 104 may optionally be determining a specific quality or a given entity from the observer. For instance, the observer may input that interior condition is also an important specific quality and to be included. The next step 106 may be optionally providing an explanation of what a relevant quality of a probed entity is, and calculating qualities' relative importance to the observer based on the observer's input as to entered quantified preferences (on a scale of 0-10 with 10 being most important), the calculation being done as if the observer fully understood in the observer's own terms what the quality is, has and/or does. The step 108 calculating the deductive price of the entity, wherein the entity is noted average in its qualities (at least one selected) in its group, and the group is identified by the fact that members of the group could have the qualities of those of the other members of the group, this imaginary (or real) average unit called the Average entity. The step 110 may be comparing the actual quality or qualities of any existent test entity to the average Average entity on a percentage or other basis, and so discovering the monetary value or comparative ranking of any the test entity to the observer by weighing the difference between any test entity and the Average entity on noted parallel quality or qualities. The step 112 translating the difference between any test entity and Average entity on noted parallel quality or qualities into monetary or other value or ranking so as to provide the true relative value for the entity. The step 114 providing the true relative value for a test entity to the observer. The optional step 116 matching buyers and sellers based on the actual value of an entity, by searching the Internet for sellers who sell product or service at a price at, below or near the entity's calculated true relative value.

FIG. 1/B

A method and procedure for providing the true relative value of an entity is shown in FIG. 1/B; The optional step 118 may be providing a central computer, wherein the central computer accepts and stores information from a observer relating to value information, wherein the value information may be information about a real-life price, or bona-fide sale offer for an entity next to that entity's name, image, denotation or description on the observer's interconnected computer. The optional step 120 may be re-computing the true relative value based on the value information regarding the most recent relative differences between respective entities' true relative values and prices considering the rank or sort position of the entity and those of the other entities in or out of the group. The optional step 122 may be providing a buyer and seller, wherein they come to a mutually satisfactory agreement regarding the mutually acceptable sale price of an entity facilitated by interactive negotiations through the Internet or other means, the starting point for such bargaining being the true relative value of an entity and/or the highest monetary number the buyer is willing to pay and the lowest monetary number at which the seller is willing to sell the entity, following buyer and seller learning the true societal value of the entity, or the value judgment of the optimally informed society, and/or the entity's relative values to the now informed buyer and seller. The step 124 providing a central computer that automatically records and remembers all observers' input, choices, selections and personal Worth Importance pies, and by continually averaging these pieces of information, is able to know and display the preferences of the average observer for the individual observer to be able to compare his own choices and value system with those of his community. The step 126 providing a central computer that automatically records and remembers all observers' input, choices, selections and personal Worth Importance pies, and by continually averaging these pieces of information, is able to know and display the preferences of the average observer for the individual observer to be able to compare his own choices and value system with those of his community. The step 128 determining by survey or other method a price point value the observer considers members of a certain test group generally overpriced or under priced. The step 130 utilizing the price point value to adjust the value of the Average entity in the group conclusively to reflect the perception of the observers' conception in reference to the test entities being so overpriced or under priced as well as using such information to create an additional desirability scale.

FIG. 2

According to another embodiment, a method and procedure is disclosed in FIG. 2. As shown, the first step 202 determining how relatively important certain qualities are to a observer to provide responses. The step 204 converting responses to appropriate-size pie slices, or other depiction of commensurate relative weights, learning for instance how much more or less important qualities are to a observer. The step 202 creating a observer's Worth Importance Point Pie by assigning relative weights of qualities of an entity by rating one, more or all the qualities of the entity on a scale of 0-10, 10 being most important. The step 204 adding said ratings. The step 206 dividing each rating by one hundredth of the total number of qualities, thereby attaining the matching slice sizes of a Worth Importance Point pie for each quality by the respective relevant percentages of the 100% pie. The step 208 calculating how much savings for how much less quality is appropriate for the observer. The step 210 measuring the observer's attractiveness scale.

FIG. 3

According to another embodiment, a method and procedure for providing the true relative value of an entity is shown in FIG. 3. The step 302 determining qualities of an entity and the relative importance of the qualities (at least one) of the entity to a observer. The step 304 calculating the deductive price of a real or fictitious entity, which is average in its one or more qualities, called the Average entity. The step 306 comparing the actual quality or qualities of any existent or imaginary test entity with the quality or qualities of the Average entity to discover and measure the difference between the test entity and the Average entity. The step 308 determining the value or ranking of the test entity by the weighted relationship between the quality or qualities of the test entity and the quality or qualities of the Average entity so as to provide a true relative value for the test entity. The step 310 comparing the values of the entities, whether or not they are similar in nature, for instance if a vacation is discovered to be worth $1000 and a computer is discovered to have a value of $800, the vacation is 20% more valuable.

FIG. 4

According to another embodiment, a method and procedure for providing the true relative value of an entity is shown in FIG. 4. The step 402 determining at least one quality of a test entity and the relative importance of each at least one quality.

The step 404 calculating the deductive price of a real or fictitious entity which entity is average in its qualities, called the Average entity 406. comparing at least one quality of the test entity to the qualities of the Average entity to measure the difference between the test entity and the Average entity. The step 408 determining the value or ranking of the test entity by the weighted relationship between the test entity's at least one quality and the qualities of the Average entity. The step 410 comparing the values of at least two test entities whether or not they are similar in nature, for instance if a vacation is discovered to be worth $1000 and a computer is discovered to have a value of $800, the vacation is 20% more valuable. The step 412 comparing existent prices with the actual values of test entities, and sorting for the best deal in the observer's terms, for instance if a vacation worth $1000 is for sale for $500 and a computer worth $800 is for sale for $700, the vacation is the better deal, but if the difference reaches a certain point, then it might be the other way around, and so on.

FIG. 5

The step 502 determining qualities of a test entity and the relative importance of each quality of the test entity to a observer. The step 504 calculating the deductive price of at least one real or fictitious entity which entity is average in its qualities in its group, the group identified by the fact that members of the group could have the qualities of those of the other members of the group, this imaginary (or real) average unit called the Average entity. The step 506 comparing the qualities of the test entity to the qualities of the Average entity on a weighted percentage or other basis, and so discovers the true relative value of the test entity to the observer by calculating the difference between the test entity and the Average entity. The step 508 collecting the consensus of the experts and laymen concerning true relative value of the qualities. The step 510 determining the weighted percentage or other biases the experts think the lay-persons' opinions should weigh, and discovering the weighted percentage or other bases weight the amateurs think the experts' opinion should have, then splitting both numbers to use for calculation.

FIG. 6

According to another embodiment, a method and procedure for providing the true relative value of an entity is disclosed, as shown in FIG. 6. This method is comprised of the step 602 determining at least one quality for at least one entity, the relative importance of the quality to a observer and a value for each at least one quality. The step 604 providing an average entity, wherein the average entity is average in its group based upon at least one quality and has a average price and an average value for at least one quality. The step 606 determining the value difference between the value for each at least one quality and average value for at least one quality. The step 608 ranking at least two entities of according to the value difference to provide a ranked list of at least two entities. The step 610 providing the ranked list to the observer.

FIG. 7

According to a different incarnation, a method and routine for providing the true relative value of an entity is disclosed, as shown in FIG. 7. This method is comprised of the step 702 providing a group, 704 providing a unit in the group wherein such unit has at least one average characteristic, 706 retrieving in a marketplace an average price corresponding to the average unit on one or more attributes, 708 quantifying the relative importance of at least one average characteristic of the average unit whereby the actual monetary value of any existent test unit in the group can be discovered by comparing the test unit's unique quantified or unquantified characteristics with those of the average unit.

FIG. 8

According to another embodiment, a method of evaluation is shown in FIG. 8. The step 802 providing a group wherein the group is identified by the fact that the members of the group could have the qualities of those of the other members. The step 804 providing a unit in the group, that unit calculated average as to at least one characteristic the members of the group can possess, as well as the average unit's assumed value, so as to provide a quantified quality for the average unit. The step 806 noting at least one of the characteristics of members in the group to a observer and noting the relative importance of each selected at least one characteristic of the members of the group to the individual or collective to provide a quantified quality for the observer. The step 808 comparing the quantified quality for the observer to the average quantified quality of the average unit in the group, on a percentage basis whereby the monetary or other value or comparative ranking of any member of the group is discovered by weighing the difference between at least one quantified parallel qualities of any member of the group against the quantified parallel quality of qualities of the average unit in the group, translating such divergence into monetary or other value or ranking. The step 810 displaying the members of the group according to their compared value or ranking.

FIG. 9

According to another embodiment, a method of valuing is disclosed and shown in FIG. 9. This method comprising step 902 providing entities, step 904 providing attributes for the entities, step 906 organizing the entities by their attributes to form organized entities, step 910 ranking the organized entities to form ranked entities, step 912 displaying the ranked entities to form valued entities.

FIG. 10

According to another embodiment, a method and procedure, where the true market value of a specific used automobile may be determined by comparing its selected, quantified characteristics, to those of the average used automobile, on a percentage or other basis is shown in FIG. 10. This method may comprise the first step 1002 through market survey or other method noting the deductive current sale price of an average used specific used make/year/model automobile, which is average according to a selected unlimited number of characteristics, at least one selected, such attributes being “engine condition,” or “location,” “color,” and so on. Step 1004 selecting at least one said characteristic (such as “interior condition,” or “extra equipment,”), all considered characteristic adding up to 100% of the average automobile's value, such as “engine condition,” and/or “interior condition,” and/or “extra equipment” and/or “location,” and so on. For example, take a 1998 Mercedes C 230, which is average on all its selected qualities, and which car, at a certain time and place, according to accurate research, should have a market price of $10,000; Step 1006 through survey or other method note how relatively important each at least one characteristic of the vehicle is, such as for instance “engine condition 55%,” “interior condition 20%,” “extra equipment 22%,” “location 3%,” and so on. In the case of this particular example, the monetary standard would then be $5,500 for said “engine condition,” (that is 55% of $10,000), $2,000 for said quality of “interior condition,” $2,200 for said attribute of “extra equipment,” and $300 for where said average automobile is located, and so on; 1008 grade an existing test vehicle, for example said test vehicle may be a unique 1998 Mercedes C 230, on each of selected parallel said at least one characteristics, on a scale of 0-10, 10 being best, or 1-5, 5 being best, or some other consistent way, and suppose for example that due to said verified evaluations, our said test 1998 Mercedes C 230 rates: 8% better than said average vehicle on its quality of “engine condition,” 5% worse than the said average vehicle as to its “interior condition,” 10% worse than said average vehicle as to its state of being invested with “extra equipment,” and 2% better than said average vehicle, as to its “location,” then calculating the value of said particular said test car, due to its measured condition of its engine, would be worth $5,500+$440=$5,940 on that particular attribute, or to put it another way, the importance of “engine condition” is 55%, which is worth $5,500 in case of said average (or standard or yardstick or touchstone) vehicle, therefore add 8% of $5,500 for said test automobile being 8% better than said average vehicle on this particular quality; then $2,000 minus 5%=$1,900; then $2,200 minus $220=$1,800; and $300+$6 equals $306; and so on, or in this example, this particular test car's true market value should then be $9,946.

FIG. 11

According to a different incarnation of the shown innovation, a method and function is shown in FIG. 11, where the current sorted out market prices or ranking of existent test entities are obtained and rendered. The step 1100 noting for how much money an entity in its group would currently sell at the marketplace, if said entity's attributes were average, at least one attribute selected; The step 1102 discovering, on a percentage-allocation or other precise basis, how relatively important each said selected quality of said entity is, at least one such attribute chosen; The step 1104 comparing said selected quantified quality of an existent test entity, with the parallel quantified qualities of the average entity, on a percentage or other accurate basis, at least one quality picked out; then calculating the resulting differences and express the same in monetary, ranking or other terms.

FIG. 12

According to another embodiment of the present invention, a method and procedure where the current correct market price or ranking of an existent test entity is shown in FIG. 12. The method may comprise the step 1200 of noting for how much money a deductive entity in a provided group would currently sell at the marketplace if at least one quality of the deductive entity were average to provide at least one average quality. The step 1202 noting how relatively important each said at least one quality is. The step 1204 comparing parallel quantified unique qualities of an existent test entity with said at least one average parallel quality of said deductive average entity on a percentage or other basis. The step 1206 calculating and expressing the difference in monetary or ranking terms.

FIG. 13

According to another embodiment of the present invention, a method and procedure for providing the price of a specific used automobile is shown in FIG. 13. The method may comprise the step 1302 noting the assumed current sale price of an average used automobile. The step 1304 selecting at least one characteristic of said car. The step 1306 assigning an importance rating to each said at least one characteristic of said vehicle. The step 1308 valuing an existing test automobile according to said at least one characteristic. The step 1310 calculating the value of said test vehicle by multiplying said at least one characteristic by its corresponding said importance rating to provide the value for said test vehicle. The step 1312 calculating the value of said average used automobile by multiplying said at least one characteristic by its corresponding said importance rating, to provide a value for said automobile. The step 1314 comparing said value for said test vehicle with said value for said average used automobile.

FIG. 14

According to an additional shape of the laid out invention, a method and procedure for furnishing the true relative value of an entity is shown in FIG. 14. The method may comprise the step 1402 determining a set of qualities of an entity, wherein said set of qualities consists of at least one quality. The step 1404 determining the relative importance to an observer of each quality of the entity within the set of qualities. The step 1406 calculating a rating for an average entity according to the relative importance of said set of qualities and the rating of the quality or qualities for the average entity. The step 1408 calculating a rating for a test entity according to the relative importance of said set of qualities and the rating of the quality for the test entity. The step 1410 comparing the rating for an average entity to the rating for a test entity to provide a comparison basis. The step 1412 translating the comparison basis between any test entity and the average entity into monetary or other value or ranking so as to provide the true relative value for the entity. The step 1414 providing to the observer the said true relative value for the test entity.

FIG. 15

According to an additional shape of the present design, a method and function for furnishing the value of an entity is shown in FIG. 15. The step 1502 determining for an observer, an appropriate set of qualities for an entity. The step 1504 rating the importance of each quality within said set of qualities to said observer of said entity on a scale of 0 to 10, or 1-5, to provide a set of importance valuations comprised of individual importance ratings. The step 1506 adding said individual importance ratings to provide a total rating. The step 1508 dividing each individual importance rating by the total rating to provide the relative weight for each quality within a set of qualities. The step 1510 determining a quality rating according to the set of qualities for at least one entity. The step 1512 multiplying each quality rating by the relative weights for at least one entity to provide at least one weighted value. The step 1514 adding each at least one weighted value to provide the entity's true relative value. The step 1516 comparing the true relative value of at least one entity to the true relative value of at least one other entity. 

1. A method and procedure for providing the true relative value of an entity, comprising the following steps: determining qualities of said entity and the relative importance of each said quality of said entity to an observer; calculating the deductive price of said entity, wherein said entity is noted average in its said qualities (at least one quality selected) in its group, said group identified by the fact that members of said group could have the qualities of those of the other members of said group, this assumed (or real) average unit called the average entity; comparing the actual said quality or qualities of any existent test entity to said average entity on a percentage or other graduated basis, and so discovering the monetary value or comparative ranking of any said test entity to said observer by weighing the difference between any said test entity and said Average entity on said noted parallel quality or qualities; translating said difference between any said test entity and said Average entity on said noted parallel quality or qualities into monetary or other value or ranking so as to provide the true relative value for said test entity; and providing said true relative value for said test entity to said observer.
 2. A method and procedure comprising the following steps; creating a observer's Worth Importance Point Pie or Bar Chart, by assigning relative weights of qualities of an entity by rating one, more or all said qualities of said entity on a scale of 0-10, 10 being most important, or other representative scale; adding said ratings; and dividing each said rating by one hundredth of the total number of said qualities, thereby attaining the matching slice sizes of said Worth Importance Point pie (or other proportionate representation) for each of said qualities by the respective relevant percentages of the 100% pie, or other assumed total constitution of said entity.
 3. A method and procedure according to claim 2, that uses said method to calculate the relative importance to a observer of saving money versus getting higher quality so that at the end, the method can sort out which computer or used car or vacation is the better buy for said observer, one that is 25% better than the average on quality and costs 50% more than the average in price, or one that rates 15% better on quality than the average and costs 3% less in price than the average, and so on.
 4. A method and procedure according to claim 1, further comprising the steps of; matching buyers and sellers based on the actual value of an entity as calculated by this method, by searching for sellers who sell product or service at a price at, below or near said entity's calculated said true relative value.
 5. A method and procedure for providing the true relative value of an entity, comprising the following steps: determining qualities of an entity and the relative importance of said qualities (at least one) of said entity to a observer; calculating the deductive price of a real or fictitious entity which said entity is average in its one or more qualities, called the average entity; comparing the actual quality or qualities of any existent or assumed test entity with the quality or qualities of said average entity to discover and measure the difference between said test entity and said average entity; determining the value or ranking of said test entity by the weighted relationship between the quality or qualities of said test entity and the quality or qualities of said average entity so as to provide a true relative value for said test entity; and comparing the values of said entities, whether or not they are similar in nature, for instance if a vacation is discovered to be worth $1,000 and a computer is discovered to have a value of $800, the vacation is approximately 20% more valuable.
 6. A method and procedure for providing the true relative value of an entity, comprising the following steps; determining qualities of a test entity and the relative importance of each said quality of said test entity; calculating the deductive price of a real or fictitious entity which entity is average in its qualities, called the average entity; comparing the actual qualities of said test entity to the qualities of said average entity to measure the difference between aid test entity and said average entity; determining the value or ranking of said test entity by the weighted relationship between said test entity's qualities and those of said average entity; comparing the values of at least two test entities whether or not they are similar in nature, for instance if a vacation is discovered to be worth $1,000 and a computer is discovered to have a value of $800, the vacation is then approximately 20% more valuable; and comparing existent prices with the actual values of said test entities, and sorting for the observer the best deal in said observer's terms, for instance if a vacation worth $1,000 is for sale for $500, and a computer worth $800 is for sale for $700, the vacation is the better deal, but if the difference reaches a certain point, then it might be the other way around, and so on.
 7. A method and procedure according to claim 2, wherein the step of creating a observer's Worth Importance Point Pie or other similar graphic or mathematical representation of allocating proportionate importance-variations, is further comprised of the following steps: determining how relatively important certain qualities are to said observer who provides responses; converting those said responses by said observer to appropriate-size pie slices, or other depiction accounting for commensurate relative weights, learning for instance how much more or less important said qualities might be to said observer; and calculating how much savings for how much less quality is appropriate for said explorer, or by measuring the buyer's attractiveness scale, which scale accounts for the explorer's budget and his or her or its level of reluctance to overpay for what the observer really wants.
 8. A method and procedure for providing the true relative value of an entity, comprising the following steps; determining qualities of a test entity and the relative importance of each said quality of said test entity to a observer; calculating the deductive price of at least one real or fictitious entity which entity is average in its qualities in its group, said group identified by the fact that members of said group could have the qualities of those of the other members of said group, this assumed (or real) average unit called the Average entity; comparing the qualities of said test entity to the qualities of said Average entity on a weighted percentage or other basis, and so discovering the true relative value of said test entity to said observer by calculating the difference between said test entity and said Average entity; collecting the consensus of the experts and laymen concerning said true relative value of said qualities; and determining the weighted percentage or other biases the experts think the lay-persons' opinions should weigh, and discovering the weighted percentage or other bases the amateurs think the experts' opinion should be considered, then splitting both numbers to use for calculation.
 9. A method and procedure according to claim 1, wherein the step of noting qualities of an entity and the relative importance of each said quality of said entity to a observer further comprises the steps of: providing an explanation of what a relevant quality of a probed entity is, has and/or does, whether or not there is a question if a technical expression or other obstacle might hinder said observer's ability to appropriately assess the importance to said observer of said quality; and automatically calculating said attribute's relative importance to said observer based on said observer's input.
 10. A method according to claim 1, further comprising the steps of: accepting and storing value assessment and value-importance proportionating information, from observers, using it to determine the average value system of society;
 11. A method according to claim 1, further comprising the following steps: providing a buyer and seller, wherein said buyer and said seller come to a mutually satisfactory agreement regarding the mutually acceptable sale price of an entity, facilitated by negotiations, the starting point for such bargaining being the true relative value of an entity, and/or the highest monetary number the buyer is willing to pay and the lowest monetary number at which the seller is willing to sell said entity, following said buyer and said seller learning the true societal value of said entity, or the value judgment of the optimally informed society, and/or said entity's relative values to the now well-informed buyer and seller.
 12. A method according to claim 1, wherein all observers' input, choices, selections and personal Worth Importance charts are recorded, stored and remembered, and by continually averaging these pieces of information, Non-Subjective Valuing is able to know and display the preferences of the average observer for the individual observer to be able to compare his own choices and value system with those of his community.
 13. A method and procedure according to claim 1, further comprising the steps of: determining by survey or other method a price point value reflecting the judgment of a unique observer or the common assessment of many observers, considering members of a certain test group, regarding such members of such group being generally overpriced or under priced; and utilizing said price point value to adjust the value of said Average entity in said group, conclusively to reflect said perception of said observers' conception in reference to said test entities being so overpriced or under priced, as well as using such information to create an additional, new desirability scale.
 14. A method and procedure according to claim 1, further comprising the step of: determining a specific quality for a given entity from said observer.
 15. A method and procedure for providing the true relative value of an entity, comprising the following steps; determining at least one quality for at least one entity, the relative importance of said quality to an observer and a value for each said at least one quality; providing an average entity, wherein said average entity is average in its group, based upon said at least one quality and has an average price and an average value for said at least one quality; determining the value difference between said value for each said at least one quality and said average value for said at least one quality; ranking at least two entities of said group according said value difference to provide a ranked list of said at least two entities; and providing ranked list to said observer.
 16. A method of evaluating a member or members of a group, comprising: a. providing a group; b. providing an assumed unit in said group wherein said assumed unit has at least one average characteristic; c. retrieving in a marketplace an average price corresponding to said assumed average unit; and d. quantifying the relative importance of said at least one average characteristic of said assumed average unit whereby e. the actual monetary value of any existent test unit in said group can be discovered by comparing said test unit's unique quantified or unquantified characteristic or characteristics with that or those of said assumed average unit and providing a sort list of said units, according to the one or more of their said values, or sorting and listing them by one, many, or all of their quanitfied or unquantified attributes.
 17. A method of evaluation, comprising: a. providing a group; b. wherein said group is identified by the fact that the members of said group could have the qualities of those of the other members; c. providing an average assumed unit in said group, which said average assumed unit is calculated average as to at least one characteristic said members of said group can possess, as well as said average assumed unit's assumed value as to provide a quantified quality for said average assumed unit; d. noting at least one of the characteristics of members in said group to a observer and noting the relative importance of each selected at least one characteristic of said members of said group to said individual or collective to provide a quantified quality for said observer; and e. comparing said quantified quality for said observer to said average quantified quality of said assumed unit in said group on a percentage basis whereby the monetary or other value or comparative ranking of any member of said group is discovered by weighing the difference between at least one quantified parallel qualities of any said member of said group against said quantified parallel quality of qualities of the said assumed unit in said group, translating such divergence into monetary or other value or ranking, and sorting by said attributes' values of said entities for comparison purposes.
 18. The method according to claim 17, further comprising: a. displaying said members of said group according to their compared value or ranking.
 19. A method of valuing, comprising: a. providing entities; b. providing attributes for said entities; c. providing an average entity which is average according to said attirbutes; d. comparing said entities to said average entity according to said attributes to provide a set of compared attributes; e. organizing said entities by said attributes to form organized entities; f. ranking said organized entities to form ranked entities; and g. displaying said ranked entities to form valued entities.
 20. A method according to claim 19, wherein said attributes include any single characteristic or combination of qualities.
 21. A method according to claim 19, wherein said attributes may include price or popularity.
 22. A method according to claim 19, wherein said attributes are chosen from the group consisting of true relative value, desirability, savings in percentage terms, savings in monetary terms, speed, height, size, power, any other quantifiable attribute and any combination thereof.
 23. A method according to claim 19, further comprising the step of displaying said entities in ascending value order of said valued entries according to their total respective values or per one or any number of their attributes.
 24. A method according to claim 19, further comprising the step of displaying said entities in descending value order of said valued entries.
 25. A method according to claim 19, wherein said step of ranking occurs in the specific terms of a observer's value system, wherein said observer may be an individual observer, society, a specific group, collective or family.
 26. A method and procedure where the correct market price of a specific used automobile may be determined by comparing its selected, quantified characteristics to those of the average used automobile on a percentage or other basis, said method comprising the following steps: a. through market survey or other method, noting the assumed current sale price of an average used automobile, wherein said average used automobile is a deductive specific used make/year/model automobile, which said average used automobile is average according to a selected unlimited number of characteristics; b. selecting at least one characteristic (such as “popularity,” or “design,”), all considered said at least one characteristic adding up to 100% of said average automobile's value, such as “customer satisfaction,” and/or “prestige,” and/or “reliability” and/or “location,” and so on, for example a 1998 Mercedes C 230 which is average on all its said qualities, should have a market price of $20,000, on a specific date in a specific city; c. through survey or other method note how relatively important each said at least one characteristic of said vehicle is, such as for instance “engine condition 55%,” “interior condition 20%,” “extra equipment 22%,” “location 3%,” and so on, in the case of this particular example the retail monetary standard would then be $11,000 for said quality of “engine condition,” (that is 55% of $20,000); $4,000 for said quality of “interior condition;” $4,400 for said attribute of “extra equipment” and $600 for where said average automobile is located, and so on; d. rate an existing test vehicle, for example said test vehicle may be a unique test 1998 Mercedes C 230, on each of selected parallel said at least one characteristics on a scale of 0-10, 10 being best or 1-5, 5 being best, or some other consistent way, and suppose for example that due to said ratings, our said test 1998 Mercedes 230 rates 8% better than said deductive average vehicle on its quality of “engine condition,” 5% worse than the said average vehicle as to its “interior condition,” 10% worse than the said average vehicle as to its “extra equipment,” and 2% better than said average vehicle as to its “location,” and e. calculating the value of said test vehicle, this particular said test vehicle on its “engine condition” attribute is to be worth $11,000 plus $880=$11,880, or to put it another way, the importance of “engine condition” comprises 55% of the total value, which in our example, is worth. $11,000 if engine condition were average, therefore since our test vehicle is 8% better than the average vehicle on this quality, we add 8% of $11,000 for said test automobile's value; our test 1998 Mercedes C 230 interior condition is determined to be 5% worse than that of the average 1998 Mercedes C 230, which means that we must deduct 5% of $4,000 from $4,000, or $4,000-$200=$3,800, making the value of our test vehicle $3,800 on this quality; then since our test automobile has 10% less extra equipment than the average one, we must deduct 10% of $4,400, or $440 from $4,400=$3,969; and lastly, in this illustration, being that our test vehicle is located in an area which is better than average by 2%, we add 2% of $600 to our test car's value for this fact, which means that is this respect, it is worth $612. Adding up $11,880+$3,800+$3,959+$612=$20,251. This $20,251 is then the value of our test vehicle, or it is about 1% more valuable than the average 1998 Mercedes C
 230. This example is only to illustrate the workings of the present claim, not to limit it in any way.
 27. A method and procedure where the current correct market price or ranking of an existent test entity may be obtained by; a. noting for how much money an entity in its group would currently sell at the marketplace if said entity were average according to at least one selected qualities, said entity with said at least one selected quality being average called the Average entity; b. observing, on a percentage or other basis, how relatively important each said at least one selected quality is; and c. comparing said at least one selected quality of said existent said test entity with parallel quantified qualities of said Average entity, on a percentage or other equitable basis, then calculating the resulting difference, and express it in monetary or ranking terms.
 28. A method and procedure where the current correct market price or ranking of an existent test entity may be obtained by: a. noting for how much money a deductive entity in a provided group would currently sell at the marketplace if at least one quality of said deductive entity were average to provide at least one average quality; b. noting how relatively important each said at least one quality is; c. comparing parallel quantified unique qualities of an existent test entity with said at least one average quality of said deductive average entity on a percentage or other just basis; and d. calculating and expressing the difference in monetary or ranking terms.
 29. A method and procedure for providing the true price of a specific used automobile, said method comprising the following steps: noting the assumed current sale price of an average used automobile; selecting a few, many, all, or at least one characteristic; assigning an importance rating to each said at least one characteristic; rating an existing test vehicle according to said at least one characteristic; calculating the value of said test vehicle by multiplying said at least one characteristic by its corresponding said importance rating to provide a value for said test vehicle; rating said average used automobile according to said at least one characteristics; calculating the value of said average used automobile by multiplying said at least one characteristic by its corresponding said importance rating to provide a value for said average used automobile; and comparing said value for said test vehicle with said value for said average used automobile, listing test automobiles in order of their value per the calculation method set forth above: sort them by one, more, or all of their qualities.
 30. A method and procedure for providing the true relative value of an entity, comprising the following steps: determining a set of qualities of said entity, wherein said set of qualities consists of at least one quality; determining the relative importance of each said quality within said set of qualities to a observer, vendor or consumer; calculating a rating for an average entity according to said relative importance of said set of qualities and the rating of said quality for said average entity; calculating a rating for a test entity according to said relative importance of said set of qualities and the rating of said quality for said test entity; comparing said rating for an average entity to said rating for a test entity or test entities, to provide a comparison basis; interpreting said comparison basis between any said test entity or entities and said average entity, into monetary or other value, or ranking, so as to provide a value scale for said test entity or entities; and after sorting them by total respective values or by any one or more valued qualities, providing said respective values of said entity or entities to said observer, in a sorted-by-attributes way.
 31. A method and procedure of determining the value of an entity to a observer comprising the following steps: determining an appropriate set of qualities for said item; rating the importance of each quality within said set of qualities to said observer on a scale of 0 to 10, 10 being best, or 1-5, 5 being best, to provide a set of importance ratings comprised of individual importance ratings; adding said individual importance ratings to provide a total rating; dividing each said individual importance rating by said total rating to provide the relative weight for each quality within said set of qualities; determining a quality rating according to said set of qualities for at least one quality; multiplying each said quality rating by said relative weights for at least one item to provide at least one weighted value; and adding each said at least one weighted value to provide said entity's value.
 32. A method as in claim 31, further comprising the step of comparing said value of at least one item to said true relative value of at least one other item.
 33. A method and procedure for providing the value of an entity, comprising the following steps: determining qualities of said entity and the relative importance of each said quality of said entity; calculating the deductive price of the average entity, wherein said entity is noted average in its said quantified qualities (at least one selected) in its group, said group identified by the fact that members of said group could have the qualities of those of the other members of said group; comparing the actual said quantified quality or qualities of any existent test entity to parallel quantified quality or qualities of said average entity, on a percentage or other calibrated basis, and so discovering the monetary value or comparative ranking of any said test entity, by weighing the difference between any said test entity and said average entity on said noted parallel quantified quality or qualities; translating said difference between any said test entity and said average entity on said noted parallel quantified or unquantified quality or qualities into monetary or other value or ranking so as to provide the value for said test entity; and providing said quantified value of said test entity or said quantified values of said test entities, in order of their total respective quantified values, or according to their one or more said quantified values, in ascending or descending order.
 34. A method and procedure for providing the a sorted by attributes list of entities, comprising the following steps: a/ provide a group of entities b/ determine the qualities of said entities c/ determine the relative value of attributes of said entities d/ determine the total value of said entities e/ set forth and display in ascending or descending order the sorted entities, such sorting based on the respective values of said entities' quantified or unquantified values, at least one attribute selected. 